Comments on: Limiting California’s Future http://californiabudgetbites.org/2009/01/21/limiting-californias-future/ Serving Fresh Policy News and Views - One Post at a Time Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:04:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: cbporg http://californiabudgetbites.org/2009/01/21/limiting-californias-future/#comment-180 Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:36:19 +0000 http://californiabudgetbites.org/?p=140#comment-180 Here’s our analysis of the measure that was approved by the Legislature as part of the February budget agreement and that will appear on the May ballot as Proposition 1A: http://cbp.org/pdfs/2009/090318_prop1A.pdf.

–Jean Ross

]]> By: Laura Strand http://californiabudgetbites.org/2009/01/21/limiting-californias-future/#comment-14 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:39:06 +0000 http://californiabudgetbites.org/?p=140#comment-14 Spending caps presume that all costs are fixed costs and ignores the fact that goods and services costs increase over time. It also ignores the fact that our population continues to increase.
It’s as simplistic – and stupid as a zero tolerance policies.

]]> By: Joseph Rosenblum http://californiabudgetbites.org/2009/01/21/limiting-californias-future/#comment-13 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:33:23 +0000 http://californiabudgetbites.org/?p=140#comment-13 Not a comment but a question. Your analysis going back to 1995 certainly shows the magnitude of cuts if enacted and effective starting then. But does the proposal require that the effective date be several years ago or is it effective for fiscal year 2010? If so, why isn’t a cap going forward, a reasonable political compromise for tax increases that set the current level of spending as the base?

]]> By: Matt http://californiabudgetbites.org/2009/01/21/limiting-californias-future/#comment-12 Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:32:17 +0000 http://californiabudgetbites.org/?p=140#comment-12 Interesting opinion your blog has on the Republican stance. Before reading this article, I was unaware there was a hard spending cap. After reading, my opinion is the hard cap isn’t working. I believe most Californians would agree with me. We tax far too much and have not enough to show for it (in terms of Universal Health care, better Education, etc.). While I’m not in favor of cutting $31b from the GF budget, I hope this is an opening for a round of negotiations where we can reach a point in which every temporary dollar in increased revenue doesn’t lead to a permanent increase in spending.

Maybe you could offer more information as to what would remain if your proposed $31b cut were to be implemented? Would we be left with nothing but commissions, agency boards, and handout programs? Why not start there? Who came up with the $31b? The chart didn’t make much sense to me……

]]>