DeSaulnier warns cities about budget cuts

State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier delivers dire warnings to cities about pending budget cuts during a speech to the Contra Costa Mayors Conference on Thursday night in Orinda.

Watch video of DeSaulnier’s comments below.

He predicted Gov. Jerry Brown will propose on Monday to shift responsibility for adults on probation to the counties, a move that will save money for the state but push the burden onto local communities.

Lisa Vorderbrueggen

  • Ralph Hoffmann

    “adults on probation…” Does this refer to our newly elected public servants?

  • Truthclubber

    “Gov. Jerry Brown will propose on Monday to shift responsibility for adults on probation to the counties, a move that will save money for the state but push the burden onto local communities…”

    No shit, Sherlock!

    This is the first of MANY moves by Brown to say “wait, we have a $28 Billion deficit here at the state level? Well, we’ll just shift it to the county and city level and let THEM deal with the political hot potato(e*) (*if you are a big Dan Quayle fan) of raising taxes or cutting programs, while we sit in Arnold’s former smoking tent and meditate (“oooooooaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhmmmmmm”) and proclaim we balanced the state budget without any pain…”

  • John W

    We’ll see, but I don’t think that’s Brown’s plan. My understanding is that funding associated with these functions would shift down to local as well. Otherwise, the locals who met with him would be screaming already, and they’re not. The locals say they can do these things more efficiently and effectively. As Reagan said, “trust but verify.” Skepticism is appropriate, but I would like to believe that Brown is trying to undo the “centralization” effects of Prop. 13, whereby everything ended up in Sacramento’s hands.

  • Elwood

    Jerry was against Prop. 13 before he was for it.

    Now, having come full circle, he may be against it again.

    Typical Jerry.

  • Truthclubber

    Re: #3 —

    With all due respect, you’re an economic moron of the first order — if I am currently fixing potholes for all of California at a cost of $100 per hole, but only collecting $70 per hole to fix same (a $30 per hole deficit), and then suddenly decide “gee, this is not worthy of me to get my state hands gritty with asphalt and tar; let those peons at the county level deal with it!”, then as I transfer the revenue of $70 per hole, I also transfer the $30 PER HOLE DEFICIT to those counties to deal with that sudden AND UNTAXED responsbility.

    Did you not see the cover story in today’s CoCo Times about the heartburn that the numerous redevelopment agencies are going through as “Slash and Burn” Brown cuts everything he can from the state budget?

    HE IS GOING TO BALANCE THE STATE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF WHATEVER AGENCY OR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IS SMALLER THAN THE STATE — so he can proclaim “I balanced the budget and you voters get local control back where you want it” — so the wealthy areas get good things through additional taxes, and the poor areas get scat.

    Welcome to Jerry Brown V2.0 — the Republican.

    If you honestly think that $28 Billion of deficits per year can be made up by merely “reducing inefficiency at the state level”, please open up a shop in Oaksterdam, cause you got some good sh!t and you ain’t sharin!

  • John W

    Re: #4

    Whoa there, Truthclubber! “With all due respect, you’re (meaning me) an economic moron of the first order?” Nice to see such civility.

    First, starting with your last comment. Who said $28 billion can be made up by “reducing inefficiency at the state level?” That’s about as far from my view as you can get. I believe in rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse,” and there is plenty of that to be done in Sacramento. But I have never suggested that would come remotely close to solving California’s structural budget problems, or even that the problems can be solved with spending cuts alone.

    Second, regarding redevelopment agencies. Yes, I read the papers too. But the status of these agencies is a separate matter from the broader question of empowering local levels of government by giving them a greater share of the state’s aggregate revenue and spending pie. I don’t pretend to be an expert on RDA’s; but, from what I’ve read, some of the projects are pure junk. Do we really need these separate power bases, operating independently of city and county government?

    Finally, using your pothole example, the argument that Brown is making (and that many locals appear to agree with him about) is that, whether it’s $70 or $100, locals should be able to get more bang for the buck than the state — due to faster decision-making, fewer layers of management and decision-making and not being stuck with one-size-fits all state spending formulas — for everything from potholes to schools. It may well be the case that, in some situations, what costs the state $100 to do can be done locally for less. Frankly, that’s proven Management 101 stuff, applicable in both the public and private sectors.

    Yes, if all Brown did was “solve” the state budget problems by dumping more responsibility onto local governments but keeping the corresponding revenue at the state level, that would be more of the business as usual shenannigans. I don’t think that’s what Brown is trying to do. At least, I hope not.

    We should get a better idea of what Brown is up to Monday, when he introduces his budget proposal.

  • John W

    Sorry, my above comments are directed to number 5 (Truthclubber), not number 4 (Elwood).

  • Truthclubber

    Re: #6 (aka Economic Moron) —

    Brown’s budget proposal (as we have all seen) has now come in at a whopping $12.5B budget cut — and has been denounced as “DOA” by the GOP (whose votes he will need, as California is not YET a DEMOCRAtatorship) for proposing extensions of tax increases that are scheduled to expire to get him the other $12B he needs to “get to zero”…so either they cave (unlikely) or he caves and digs in for even more spending cuts — which will cause panic in the streets.

    Why is this relevant? Well, because “it’s the spending, stupid!” Take a look at the historical data on California Budget Expenditures from 1976 to 2011 to see just how “f-d” up the spending has been lately, Johnny W!

    From 2005 to 2007 the General Fund (in terms of controllable state spending, the only one that matters) went up from $79.8B to $101.4B — an increase of over 27 F***ing percent in a mere two years!

    Note that the Federal Funds level, which as recently as 2007 (Bush) was no more than 53% of its rival, the California General Fund, is (thanks to Obamanation and the big 2009 ARRA stimulus in the sky) now more than 110% of the California General Fund for the year just ended — 2010 — a MASSIVE Federal bailout of California’s f-d up out of control spending that (thanks to Boehner, Cantor and Ryan) is NOT going to continue in the coming Federal budget to be voted on, along with the Federal debt ceiling, and other such “minor” matters….

    Wanna see what is going to happen to California if Moonbeam refuses to cut even more spending, such as reducing the number and compensation of SEIU 1000 cronies or correctional officers, to fill the remaining shortfall of $12B that he was counting on as of today?

    Take a look at this eyepopper of a true story! to see what would be in store for us if we didn’t have our sacred 2/3 majority vote needed to raise taxes in THIS state!

    Earth to Moonbeam: Cut the F’ing spending back to 2005 levels, N-O-W!

  • John W

    Re: #8

    “Cut the [expletive deleted] spending back to 2005 levels…”

    If the GOP can spell out a credible “all cuts” way to close the $25 billion gap, bring it on!

    2004-05: general fund = $79.8B; $2,189 per capita.
    2011-12: general fund proposed = $84.6B; $2,161 per capita. 2004-05 would be higher than stated here if indexed for general inflation and much higher inflation for the Medi-Cal component.

    Yes, now compared with 1976 is startling, until you look at it on a per capita and inflation-adjusted basis. Per capita general fund spending in 1976 = $442, which is about $1,737 in 2010 dollars. Plus, Medi-Cal was not even a material factor back then.

    I’m all for “lean and mean.” Just saying you need to look at the numbers apples-to-apples.

  • Truthclubber

    That’s a really LAME-O response, Moron-o.

    You ignored the FACT that General Fund spending under a Democratic legislature (who writes the budget, FYI — not the Governor’s office) went up over 27 F’ing percent in merely two years (2005 to 2007) and also paper over your own fact that adjusted for inflation and per-capita details, the 2012 proposal by Brownie is WAAAAAAAY higher in nominal terms ($2,161) than it was in 1976 ($1,737) — so the same “person” IS GETTING A WHOLE LOT MORE “REAL” BENEFIT FROM THE STATE TROUGH.

    Fabian Nunez and Company went hog-wild and jacked up the spending during 2005-2007 WAY more than was justified — and now that spending has to be JACKED down, period.

    Let’s (to use a Palinism — not appropriate in Arizona any more, thank God!) “put those spending increases by department, 2005-2007, in the CROSSHAIRS” and see just who/what got obscenely bigger budget increases for that time period, and merely DIAL IT BACK!” — as someone once said, “sunshine is the best disinfectant….”

    What are you afraid of in that scenario, oh “shill for the SEIU, Johnny W.”?

  • Wizard

    Truthclubber…first of all you sound and act like every
    tea baggin jerk who yells and screams his false beliefs at the top
    of his voice while refusing to listen to ANYBODY elses point of
    view…all the while thinking that they alone have the solution for
    complex problems with idiotic stupid simple minded verbage. Wow, I
    sound just like you…but with an actual point… You have called
    another writer Lame, Moron, Stupid, Idiot…so I am for sure going
    to listen to you because you are so intelligent so far that I can’t
    wait to even delve into your solutions that are written between the
    expletives and put downs. The fact is that we voted for, didn’t
    wan’t to pony up for the cost increases this state required in
    spite of that fact. Don’t ever elect to office the man/woman that
    tells the truth and doesn’t run on even more tax cuts and similar
    verbage. Yes there is waste, but no one actually cleans that up and
    then maintains a neat, tidy gov’t. And I have never believed that
    there is enough waste that it alone can make up the deficit…would
    be nice and yes it would help to remove waste…but without
    realizing it even YOU are against removing it. The simple fact you
    cannot understand the simplistic common sense of savings by taking
    it out of the hands of Sacramento and putting some decisions BACK
    into the hands of local gov’t escapes me. To use your analagy it
    makes more sense for a guy in Sacramento to patch the hole on my
    street in Huntington Beach than a guy from here. (And of course you
    would quote Palin…fits your style.) It sounds so nice to just say
    put spending levels back to 2005. Typical tea bagger quote. Simple,
    sounds good, gets votes, etc…now actually come up with a PLAN to
    make that budget work that doesn’t mean screwing somebody who then
    starts writing in like you do. Make that budget work without it
    ruining our education system, putting criminals back on the street
    sooner, cutting funds at every level for everything including your
    $100 pot hole you refuse to believe can be filled localy for $70
    (or less). I will listen to you rant and rave, cuss at people, call
    them morons when I hear an actual solution from you laid out in a
    non aggressive way that ACTUALLY HAS A PLAN OR SOLUTION instead of
    the usual tea bag verbage that is really only a “complaint hidden
    in a statement desguised as a solution” that has no plan
    whatsoever. It’s as, to use your word, “moronic” to say “I don’t
    want no government healthcare, and don’t you dare touch my
    medicare” as it is to say the “solutiuon” is to just simply go back
    to the 2005 spending budget. To do that I suggest you remove all
    the people that didn’t live here in 2005. reinstate all the jobs
    lost since 2005, wave a wand and recreate all the businesses that
    went under since 2005 thus bringing back the taxes paid in 2005 in
    order to even have THAT budget be viable. The problem is way more
    complex and involves way more people than you Truthclubber and your
    fellow tea baggers…so keep your weak “solution” to what it really
    is…your opinion. And allow others to make their opinions without
    you drowning them out with the typical hyperbole, simplistic rants
    and raves that are slowly killing this country by convincing people
    to vote for the guy who yells the loudest and runs only on cutting
    taxes without any solutions to the problems that those cuts