There
’s plenty to quibble about in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s
budget proposal – the fact that it relies on a highly dubious and
unlikely to pass $15 billion bond measure; questions about the
treatment of local governments; doubts about the wisdom of raising
tuitions – again – at California’
s community colleges and state colleges and universities;
suspicion that not enough fat at the state level is being cut,
whether it’s at state prisons, in legislative offices or buried in
layers of bureaucracy. But we’ll leave the details of the budget
proposal for another time. Right now, we’
re concerned about the big picture.
There’s plenty to quibble about in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal – the fact that it relies on a highly dubious and unlikely to pass $15 billion bond measure; questions about the treatment of local governments; doubts about the wisdom of raising tuitions – again – at California’s community colleges and state colleges and universities; suspicion that not enough fat at the state level is being cut, whether it’s at state prisons, in legislative offices or buried in layers of bureaucracy. But we’ll leave the details of the budget proposal for another time. Right now, we’re concerned about the big picture.
California is a state teetering on the edge of fiscal collapse. Even if Schwarzenegger’s budget is adopted as proposed (and the chances of that are slim and none) and the companion mammoth bond measure is approved by voters (also looking doubtful, according to recent polls), Schwarzenegger’s $99.1-billion budget will still leave California’s accounts in a $3- to $6-billion hole. The governor’s budget is also disappointing because it’s based on rosy economic forecasts that predict that state tax revenue will increase by nearly $3 billion in fiscal year 2004-2005.
That’s not all. If the governor’s Hollywood persona and trite slogans fail to convince voters to approve a $15 billion loan to pay off the existing debt, the state’s deficit will increase to Titanic proportions – $27 billion dollars by June 2005.
For an entity in such dire financial straits, we’re underwhelmed by Schwarzenegger’s tepid, more-of-the-same spending plan.
Between the wild growth of state government in the last decade and the proposition hamstrings voters have put on legislators, this state has woven quite a web of fiscal woe. Untangling it won’t be accomplished with shuffling funds from here to there or without pain.
We think most of that pain belongs at the state government level. For most people, their city and county governments and school boards have the greatest impact on their quality of life. Citizens also have the most control of funds spent at these governmental levels. Before taking money from those agencies, who provide the health care services, the roads, the police and fire protection, the recreation services and the educations Californians need, we’d like to see wholesale slashing of state bureacracy.
We think the state should get out of the middleman business when it comes to funds earmarked for cities, counties and public schools. That way, the state can’t get grabby when it overspends itself into billion-dollar deficits.
We think radical ideas, a sense of outrage at government growth and waste and a budget ax aimed squarely at Sacramento ought to be the hallmarks of any state spending plan.
No more tired Hollywood one-liners. Let’s see some real action from our new governor: Balance the budget on the backs of Sacramento bureaucrats.
