Right now all of the special interests are begging Sacramento not to cut their programs – arguing that their programs are essential. This of course is in the wake of a budget outlook in Sacramento that went from bad to worse after the voters disposed of a slate of propositions that included the largest tax increases in U.S. history.
That outcome should be seen as a mandate for change (to the tune of 65% “No” to 35% “Yes”), but some of the majority Democrats in Sacramento are still attempting to add new, highly expensive and long-term programs that would more than break the state’s already stretched budget.
How to pay for this lack of fundamental reform? Well I’m here in San Bernardino as one of 58 counties being targeted by Sacramento lawmakers looking to withhold, cut and/or “borrow” funds in order to dig out of their budget hole.
I’m talking about local government, counties and cities. We are not an optional program or special interest. We are by definition essential institutions, not luxuries that can be done without. Police, fire protection, streets and roads, jails … these are the things you fund first, before, if ever, reaching for Utopian cradle-to-grave entitlement programs.
San Bernardino County has already cut more than $120 million from its budget to deal with state and federal cuts and the downturn in the economy, which is dragging down property tax and sales tax revenues. But the most recent raft of hits to local governments being floated at the state level could mean another $170 million in cuts. I’m all for smaller government, but such cuts to county government would severely disable every essential local service. It would be cutting muscle, bone and nerves – not fat.
Still, the Contra Costa Times political blotter site has noted that Senate president pro-tem Darrell Steinberg has donated $75,000 to the Californians for Children’s Health campaign, a group committed to seeing universal health care given to all children of California, regardless of whether they need it or not, or are here illegally or legally. Now don’t get me wrong, in a perfect world all children should receive health care. They have no control over their individual circumstances. But in the real world, the State of California is in such poor financial shape that the idea of taking children who already have health care coverage out of their current health plans and making them wards of the state health care system will cost the state billions in dollars it does not have. Add the children of illegal immigrants to this and you have an entitlement program that will add more financial problems to an already blown state budget.
Considering the deficit is pegged at nearly $25 billion (as of today), the state will have to pay billions in interest and fees to pay for its already and soon-to-be financed debts. This much money, along with the costs associated, will make it next to impossible for the State to pay back “borrowed” funds from local governments. In 1992, the State borrowed funds and was able to pay them back when the economy recovered. But this state has lost 600,000 jobs in the past year. The circumstances today are much worse than in 1992.
The Governor would be wise to hold a tough line against borrowing or increased entitlement spending. Assemblyman Bill Emmerson (R-Redlands) recently wrote that the Governor should leave out of consideration any bill that does not address the current economic situation. And the Governor would be wise to keep his own word: “We can only spend what we have. That is the harsh but simple reality…our wallet is empty, our bank is closed and our credit is dried up.”
The Governor should focus on cutting the State budget and leave local governments to work on their own problems. As the Democrats prepare to push another spending and regulatory agenda, it will be incumbent upon the Governor to make the “tough and painful” decisions he is speaking about.
But the question I have is: How much pain is state government willing to visit upon local governments when it was growth in state government that largely got us into this mess?
June 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Perhaps you missed the vote totals on Props 1D and 1E where the voters clearly rejected cuts to the most vulnerable citizens in the state, among them children.
Also, do you really thing it’s less expensive to treat kids when they show up at the emergency room? Or is it fiscally smarter to provide treatment to prevent those situations?
You might also want to double check your statistics. It’s largely because of the VLF and hike in aid to cities and towns that “state” spending went up.