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.”?

“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.

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!

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.

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!

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

Typical Jerry.

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…”