Brown’s budget increases spending by 8.5 %
By Jim Christie and Sharon Bernstein, Reuters
Gov. Jerry Brown continued his message of fiscal restraint in his state budget plan, which would increase funding for education but not restore many recession-era cuts, including healthcare services for the poor.
Brown’s plan, which was leaked Wednesday night and posted online, proposes spending $106.8 billion from the state’s general fund, and sets up a $1.6 billion rainy day fund, according to a copy posted by the Sacramento Bee and confirmed to Reuters by an aide to a top Democratic lawmaker. The official release was planned for Friday, but was changed to today.
While the plan would increase general fund spending in the state’s next fiscal year – by $8.3 billion, or 8.5 percent – it does not include many programs pushed by his fellow Democrats.
Only in government is increased spending considered fiscal restraint.
Only on the lunatic fringe of right wing political thought are austerity ideas still being promoted in the face of grotesque worldwide failure. The only defense the cons have for this soulless economic disaster policy is that other countries just didn’t stick it to their working class, seniors and poor hard enough, that’s why it failed. It’s like their tax cuts for the rich philosophy, if we just give them more the trickle down will begin. We must give up on reaganomics. We’ve been robbed by 30+ yrs. of it.
Bill – from what I remember of economics, there’s the invisible hand, where government stays out of the people’s affairs in general and lets the free market solve its own problems, this tends to be embraced by Republicans. (this is not lunatic thought, but solid economic theory backed by many top economists) The other type is Keynesian wherein the government steps in and tunes the economy, spending to spur things on, and saving in the good times for the bad, the democrats tend to lean this way. (again another solid economic theory with its merits and backed by many economists)
The problem the way I’ve seen it is that while both systems have their merits and are valid. But you can’t do both at the same time, and since America is essentially a two party system, when one side gets its way, the others economic policy fails.
Therefore if you take a side it looks like the other side is ruining the economy. Yes its a good thing to spend money to spur the economy, save money now that the finances merit it. But just as easily another could say, government spending is inefficient I’d rather pay less in taxes from the start (and since the rich pay the most, they get the most in breaks), and why save for a rainy day, why not just give the money back to the people rather than letting the government horde it.
To close I’d like to say there is no easy solution. But California is dominated by democrats and thus Keynesian principals. One is going to have a very hard argument blaming the other side in this. Personally I applaud Governor Brown for actually saving tax payers money now unlike many of his colleagues. But I do think your assign of blame to “the lunatic fringe of right wing political thought” is without merit as it pertains to the article applied here in California. I would invite you to explain to me the flaws of my logic in a civil educational manner.
Giving the government any more money to spend is like feeding rats in your basement.
Louis, What part of “We must give up on reaganomics” did you fail to comprehend?
Louis, don’t bother trying to engage BB in a discussion. He’s incapable of being civil to anyone who disagrees with him.
BB
The economic failure of Europe comes from decades of liberalism. We in America have let liberals lead us over the same cliff.
Your assertions and often repeated reagan rants are laughable.
Dogula,
Try defending the horrific failure of reaganomics and constant obstructionism vs. California’s economic turnaround since Gov. Brown and the Dems took over instead of whining about being persecuted. Somebody has to push back against the drone of the perpetually wrong.
Bill, I gave you a chance. You stated no flaw to my logic. You gave no evidence to support your claim. This article was about California, not about economic polices from 20-30 years ago that have been watered down. I never said I disagreed with you, merely that your statement was out of place or context.
I’ll give you another chance to make an intelligent persuasive case. Please explain why states that tend to favor more Laissez-faire economic policies (take Utah for example) favored by Republicans tend to fair better in terms of deficits, job growth, crime prevention, economic assistance, juxtaposed to California that favors Keynesian economics, frequently has deficits, has high unemployment, huge barriers to entry for businesses, the highest incarceration rates.
Please also explain how the Republicans are screwing up California’s economy due to economic polices you advocate were set in place from 30 years ago.
Please also consider that federal policy is a separate issue from state policies. Mostly because federal government may print money and dictate to states regulations, laws and unfunded mandates.
If you can’t do that Bill, I would be forced to conclude that Dog is correct.
Louis,
The fact that you think that reaganomic policies ceased to exist 30 years ago doesn’t show much understanding of our current fiscal status. To the contrary, GOP policies that have failed in California and nationwide have become even more reactionary. With very few exceptions the Blue States subsidize the Red States as far as tax revenues go. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face-guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes_.html Further proof of the states that are actually footing the tax bill is easily researched.
In California’s case, simplistically labeling our problems as Keynesian in nature ignores the Prop. 13 disaster and GOP obstructionism that have retarded our growth for decades. In spite of those negatives, California is making a comeback with our current Governor and legislature’s Dem. majority.
The flaws in your argument are that folks on the extreme right don’t have any real facts, you have economic failure caused by 30+ years of GOP policies staring you in the face and you just become more entrenched and move farther to the right, to the lunatic fringe of the Teabag Party, where I must conclude you now reside. Good luck with that. EOM
God forbid he doesn’t spend it. THAT would make too much sense. Typical liberal over spending as usual. What a lunatic.
Bill, I’m impressed, that was a lucid and rational argument. Why can’t you do that more often? Often in the past you just spout baseless attacks as though your reader has to assume we have all the knowledge in your head.
I would politely disagree on a few points, but that’s ok. I don’t recall saying that I’m on the right, you inferred that. However for all your points I could come up with counter points, for the purposes of an intelligent meaningful discussion. That does not mean I am on one side or the other. But for clarity sake so you know, I am on America’s side.
I would like to however to point out to you that the successes under the Clinton years were the results of the budgets passed by the Republican legislature in the house. After all its the house that sets the budget and thus the direction of the country, NOT the president as most like to think. Who has been in charge of the house of representative the past few years now? Yet who gets the credit for the economy? Who got the credit for the federal shutdown?
The fact is I still stand behind my original point. Both sides have very valid economic theory / policies. The problem is when one has their policy tampered with it doesn’t work.
Lastly I would contend that your assertion that blue states support red states at the federal level monetarily while technically true is a fallacy of logic. Federal dollars do not ordinarily impact state budgets except for pass through expenses. However yes I would grant you that federal policy often creates unfunded mandates to state policy and red states tend to do a better job justifying federal dollars to offset those mandates and thus more tax dollars flow to them. The reason I would doubt your contention is because the original point and contention was comparing the fiscal solidness of state budgets.
OMG! The California State Budget is Balanced for the first time since ENRON ripped us off for $27 Billion. OMG! Governor Brown is setting aside a “rainy day fund!” OMG! California is back to the 8th LARGEST Economy on the Planet; right behind the ENTIRE Russian Federation and Italy! And the only thing that Dog, CJ and AB can do is WHINE about it! Classic.