I had a chance to meet Elizabeth Hill, the Legislative Analyst, last December at the joint legislative retreat of Senate and Assembly Republicans. She is a remarkably pleasant person, and clearly someone who has a grasp of state fiscal issues.
That said, I have to say that I was extremely disappointed at the "Alternative Budget" that her office released yesterday, that is the source of so many MSM news stories today.
Why the disappointment? Because Hill in a very antiseptic way is looking at the gap between projected state incoming and projected state spending, and is making proposals to "fill the gap" with a combination of spending cuts and de facto tax increase (by slashing existing tax credits) and proposing more fee increases.
In other words, Hill is siding solidly on the side of "growing" state government to deal with what we have said all along is an over-spending problem. If you go back over the last few budgets, you will see that there has been a *massive* increase in state spending, that is the root of the problem.
It is completely unfair to California taxpayers to hoist an additional burden on them when the liberals running the legislature have created and nurtured a "culture of spending" which is 100% responsible for our current deficit, now projected at $15 billion++.
As has been repeated over and over again by Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, raising taxes and fees are simply not options here. California government must resolve its deficit by living within its means, and that means through cutting a lot of the increases in spending that have proliferated during the 21st century.
Perhaps what is most frustrating about Elizabeth Hill’s report is that she clearly understands the problem. In fact, we’re used to Hill’s realistic assessments of state finances providing some clarity when liberals in the Capitol are playing "smoke and mirrors" and trying to make the state’s financial picture less bleak.
So it’s just unfortunate that Hill doesn’t appear to have an ideological bias towards a more limited role for government here in California. While there are some intriguing programmatic ideas in her proposal, it is very hard to get around the fact that, if adopted, would once again ratchet up the state’s "squeeze" on California taxpayers just when our state’s economy can least afford it.
You can read Hill’s alternative budget (and weep) here.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon –
You misspelled burden. It’s what occurs when we stiff public education to prop up the profits of business
February 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
The simplest way to resolve this budget mess…a 50 mile zone devoid of lobbyists in Sacaramento followed by laying off 10% of admin staff for the legislature and 5% cut in government worker staff, no new hires and let attrition knock off another 5% of gov. workers.
Stop all studies and Goom Bye Aaah committees….show some GUTS. Cut costs swiftly. Atilla The Hun..guys!
February 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
We, the voters, allowed this mess to happen. It’s never “my” elected official, but always the other district’s elected official that created this mess. Most of California has yet to wake up to the fact that fiscal constraint is needed. Even now we look at suggestions coming from the democrats and the governor which pretty much just rearranges the problem so the future will have to deal with it. Increasing taxes is not the solution to this bloated mess. Hardly anyone from Sacramento talks about fiscal constraint. First of all, I believe that those elected officials from Sacramento need to show some responsibility and take a pay cut. They created this mess so they don’t deserve what we pay them. Maybe if they were forced to watch their own personal finances, they would be better able to watch Sacramento’s budget. Second, we give the politicians small cars to drive. There is no justification why we, the taxpayers, must pay for their desire for “muscle wagon”. If these politicians want to drive these “muscle wagons”, then let them pay for it out of their pockets, not ours.
Come election time in June and November, let’s make sure everyone knows who created this mess. If they can’t show fiscal constraint NOW, then they probably never will.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am
The truth hurts.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
“most heavily taxed=most deeply in debt.”
any questions? solution is really quite simple: lower rates not higher rates; get rid of economy killing laws that do zero good (AB32 comes to mind); allow but force government employees to compete (fairly and equitably) with private contractors; zero baseline budget every year.