Lavish spending is not the culprit in California budget crisis
Reporting from Sacramento -- There's a giant Christmas tree all lit up outside California's Capitol. But inside, the place is hardly filled with tidings of joy.
This has not been a season to be jolly.
The state faces a real danger of running out of cash by spring. Major highway projects already are being delayed because the state can't sell bonds. It's facing a $15-billion deficit in the fiscal year that ends June 30 and, if nothing's done about it, another $25-billion-plus for the next fiscal year.
That totals $40 billion in red ink. But the figure really is moot because before things ever get that bad, state government will have collapsed.
Everybody's pointing fingers as they squabble over a solution.
The Republican governor and Democratic legislators ridicule GOP lawmakers as ultraconservative, inflexible obstructionists because they refuse to vote for a tax increase.
Democrats are denounced by Republicans as out-of-control spenders. Nothing new there. But now the GOP also is taking dead aim at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. And why not? Virtually nothing gets spent without a governor's sign-off.
But how lavish has been the spending on Schwarzenegger's watch?
Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis last week pegged the spending growth at 43% and asserted: "It is unfortunate that the governor and Democrats are only interested in raising taxes."
That's not quite true. Democrats last week passed a bill that would have pared spending by $7.3 billion -- on top of $11 billion in previous program cuts this year -- while raising taxes and fees by $9.3 billion. Schwarzenegger said he'd veto the bill because the cuts weren't deep enough and the taxes were too high.
Villines' broadside at Schwarzenegger prompted an angry response from the governor's office. Communications director Matt David accused Republicans of blocking tax hikes "because they have signed pledges to protect special interests." And he called the 43% spending growth figure a "factual inaccuracy." David placed it at only 32%.
Both men were referring to the general fund, the state's main account, over which the governor exercises the most control. There also are special funds fed by user fees and taxes designated by voters for specific programs.
Added together, the general fund, special funds and bond spending amount to a current grand budget total of $144.5 billion. That's about a 39% increase over what Schwarzenegger inherited, David calculates.
Like a fool, I set out to find the correct percentage for general fund spending growth. Was it 43% or 32%?
The answer depends on what you count, of course. And remember that Schwarzenegger took office in November 2003.
Villines' 43% figure uses as its base the last budget signed by recalled Gov. Gray Davis in late summer 2003. That number is compared with the current budget signed by Schwarzenegger in September. The adopted general fund budgets for each year are $71.1 billion and $103.4 billion, respectively. And that actually amounts to 45% growth.
David's 32% growth figure uses a higher base: the final 2003-04 spending total of $78.3 billion that was calculated after all the bills had been paid, long past the end of the fiscal year. That figure will go into the archives as the year's official general fund spending total.
