Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

Jon Fleischman

GOP should reject the Perata/Nunez budget, and oppose ANY new bonds…

In the Golden Pen column today, our own Mike Der Manouel, Jr., lays out some sobering numbers about how state government spending is increasing at a pace vastly exceeding the growth of California’s population.  Here is an excerpt from Mike’s piece:

According to the Legislative Analyst, 10 years ago, the budget presented by Gov. Pete Wilson proposed the following spending: general fund, $50.3 billion; special funds, $14.3 billion; total, $64.6 billion; reserves, $553 million.

Ten years later, the 2007-08 budget proposes: general fund, $103.1 billion; special funds, $27.7 billion; total, $131 billion.

The increase in state spending over 10 years? A whopping 202%. During this same 10-year period, according to the Census Bureau and California’s Department of Finance, the state’s population increased from 32.9 million to 37.1 million, or 13%.

So in one decade, state spending has increased by a massive 202%???  That is ridiculous, and should be a clarion call for an overhaul of the California tax system, reducing rates so that Californians can retain more of their income and funds to spend on their own priorities, as opposed to the priorities of the liberal Democrat in control of our state’s finances.

Of course, compounding this tragedy of state government growth is the tens of billions of dollars in bonded indebtedness that has been thrown at this generation of Californians, and the next.  Yes, our children will be paying for the borrowing of today.

When you combine the bloated state income stream with the maxed-out state bond "credit card" — you have to wonder at the hubris of state politicians who will not cut even a small fraction of spending from the budget, and once again want to hurl more bond debt our way.

If we pass a budget that doesn’t start to curtain spending, and if we put more bonds on the ballot — well, the GOP need only look in the mirror — as budgets and bonds all require a 2/3 vote of the legislature (well, except for the scandal of ‘lease revenue bonds’ which allow politicians to indebt Californians without a vote of the people).

Today there are a few news stories talking about more bonds — now, WATER BONDS.  Let me throw out there that California needs more above-ground water storage, and there are definite issues surrounding the movement of water around this very large state.  The issue is not whether tax dollars should be spent on these items.  The issue is where should those tax dollars come from?

The liberal Democrats in Sacramento who have spent decades ignoring the state’s infrastructure needs, preferring instead to spend state general fund dollars on their liberal social programs, have let us to a horrible place…   Already, taxpayers took it in the shorts last year, with tens of millions in infrastructure bonds being approved by frustrated voters who want infrastructure up to snuff in the Golden State.  And now, yes, there is talk of putting even more bonds before the voters, which will likely be approved.

Well, here is a wake-up call for Republican legislators — there is zippo chance of achieving a majority in Sacramento if the day of reckoning for Democrats’ misspending never comes.  And it never will as long as the message from Republicans is that for "important needs" we will whip out the state’s credit card.  By doing so, the poor choices of Democrats never raise the ire of the electorate, and there is no pressure to substitute common-sense infrastructure investment over whacky liberal spending schemes.

Actually, for major public works such as dams, bonds actually make sense.  But not in our current climate.  Why?  Because with a 202% growth in revenue to the state over the last decade, California taxpayers are ALREADY paying more than enough to cover all of our infrastructure needs and then some.

So, GOPers should hold tight for a balanced budget with less spending, and should cut up the state’s credit card by agreeing not only to no new taxes, but also to no new borrowing.

Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?

Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.