Comments on: Mike’s Easy Guide to the California Election May 19th

By: mike

mike — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:04:32 +0000

Jeff – yes! It’s all part of the plan!

California does not have a budget problem. California has a spending problem. We’ve allegedly got a $21B shortfall on a budget of $92B. That means that we just need to do a unilateral 23% spending cut. It will be fine. Legislators will continue to whine.

Obama will ride in on his white horse, bail us out for half of it, and California citizens will notice very very little difference.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 20 May 2009 13:44:54 +0000

Well, Mike, your influence seems to have tipped the scales. 5 out of 6 isn’t bad.

Now to see how those fine folks in Sacramento can close the gap. What I’d like to know is this: Is the likely event that consensus cannot be had, what happens if no budgetary legislation passes at all?

I’m guessing that the state’s credit goes into the toilet and all forms of contracting stop, prisoners riot and flee, schools just close, wildfires raze whole towns. So presumably they can reach consensus on some core issues. Ought to be very interesting to watch which issues get any money at all.

I’ve gotta say I’m not sure that Senators from the midwest are prepared to commit federal dollars to the problem.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:50:57 +0000

Adrian – sure, the politicians don’t call it a *slush* fund, but you’ve got to admit that allows money to be spent in a very broad range of areas. Slushy. You’re right, my word choice that it “creates” the fund was incorrect. It expands existing, similar funding and broadens the definition of how the money can be spent.

Thanks for the clarification!

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:54:33 +0000

To be fair, 1A doesn’t *establish* a Rainy Day *Slush* Fund. It changes the rules for the existing Budget Stabilization Fund. And it’s not a slush fund, it’s specifically for emergencies, paying down the debt, infrastructure, and education. It requires the state the save for emergencies in good years. It does also extend the recent increases in sales, vehicle, and income tax to help pump up the fund.

I’m not saying I’m for it. But I thought I’d call you out on your mischaracterization of it.