Hi Gang:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ,faced with a 15.2Billion Dollar short fall for the State of California,today signed an executive order that means pink slips for more than 10,000 part-time and temporary state workers,and reduced full-time workers pay to $6.50 an hour,the federal minimum wage.


Problem is Arnold started at the wrong end...

he should have reduced the wages of every State Assemblyman and State Senator to $6.50 an hour...

I'll bet would get the budget settled in a hurry!

A 15.2 Billion Dollar short fall means that the State of California is spending $15.2 Billion Dollars more than they are taking in in the form of taxes and other revenues.

Since the Democrats control both Houses in California,they establish the budget and are supposed to control both revenues and spending.

If they are spending $15.2 Billion Dollars more than they are taking in,don't blame Arnold for this royal screwup...

blame the two Democrat controlled Houses.

hippolips

In California, the governor proposes the budget to the legislature. Did the legislature give Arnold what he wanted, cut Arnold's proposed budget, or force him to accept a larger budget and spend more money? Please supply sources for your answer.

I further see that the governor of California must either sign or veto any budget that the legislature passes, and that he has line item veto power. The California Constitution allows the Governor to reduce or eliminate an item of appropriation is he so desires.

Isn't this kind of budget crisis pretty much business-as-usual for California?

Governments generally have difficulty "tweaking" their budgets on a regular basis, with managers thinking they have to spend every dime they are allocated lest they lose some of their funding.

I haven't researched it, but wonder what California expected its deficit or surplus to be when the budget was signed. As the economy slowed, and revnues fell, did they even attempt to make redutions in spending?

Since the facts show that the governor actually has the final say on the budget (He can't increase it, but he can lower any part he wants to any degree.), we might find Hippo either absent from this forum or coming back and avoiding the subject of his own thread.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:


we might find Hippo either absent from this forum or coming back and avoiding the subject of his own thread.

______________________________________________

Hi Dor:

Sorry, I couldn't respond before now ,but I 've been out of the house all day long.

I'll try to respond to your query tomorrow after I've had a chance to review the article from which I made my post.

I'm not certain that the article contained the original budget figure or the finalized budget figure. But I'll be back with what I find.

hippolips

California's annual budget process - PDF flowchart

Wow. No wonder they're in a mess. Notice that, at some point in there, a two-thirds vote is needed from each house. Budgets, therefore, seem to be a compromise (or, in technical terms, a dog's dinner) put together by all the parties.

Don't voters in California also get a micro-managing say in budgets, too? No doubt the courts will also be involved, because of the Governor's wage-cut and layoff plans.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
we might find Hippo either absent from this forum or coming back and avoiding the subject of his own thread.

______________________________________________

Hi Dor:

As promised ,here's what I found when I went to the State of Califonia Governor's Budget 2008-09 site.

The proposed budget was $141,038,573.

It was increased to $144,407,034,an increase of $3,368,461 or +2.39 %.

The General Fund revenues expected were forecast to be $99.1 Billion[with a B].

If these figures are correct ,I wonder what the hell are they doing with the rest of the money ???

Feel free to check my numbers at this site or any other site you can find.

hippolips

So Arnold signed off on a budget that didn't work, even though he could have vetoed it or lowered some aspects of it. (Remember, the budget doesn't take effect until the governor OKs it.) And yet you want to blame the legislators.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
So Arnold signed off on a budget that didn't work, even though he could have vetoed it or lowered some aspects of it. (Remember, the budget doesn't take effect until the governor OKs it.) And yet you want to blame the legislators.

______________________________________________

Hi Dor:

Yes ,I do want to blame the Legislators... because the State of California still has to pay its bills ...just like any household in this country.

While the legislators sit in Sacremento on their dead asses,doing nothing,the credit rating of our state gets worse by the day.

I know you don't care about California because you don't live here,but I do.

hippolips

Hi Dor:

When I rechecked the Governor's Budget it lists a Proposed Budget,a Revised Budget, and an Enacted Budget.

There are no figures shown for an Enacted Budget...so I don't believe Arnold has signed the Revised Budget, or we would have the Enacted Budget figures shown.

hippolips

SO a budget was submitted to Arnold, and, instead of cutting it in places, which he is legally entitled to do, he just didn't sign it. Now, California, if in fact it does allow Arnold's grandstanding to go in effect, which it may not, (State controller John Chiang said he would continue to pay California employees their full pay even if the governor signs the executive order.) will not only save only a very small portion of the shortfall, but will face legal bills for not paying employees what it has contracted to pay them. And you will see this as the legislature's fault. With such an attitude (Remember, YOU guys voted him in, and voted the guy who saw this coming out.) as this, it is no wonder why the rest of the US looks at California and chuckles.