[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

In 2003, in response to the threat of a $14 billion budget deficit (sound familiar?), Governor Schwarzenegger proposed -- but failed to pass -- a strict budget spending cap triggering automatic "robocuts" which even he later admitted would have had the effect of locking in billions of dollars in reductions to essential state services such as public safety.
 
In 2005, the Governor proposed and funded Proposition 76, a statewide initiative that would have once again set a strict spending cap, weakened Proposition 98 and given the Governor unilateral authority to make budget cuts to education, public safety and other services, whenever, wherever, he wanted.  It was overwhelmingly defeated by a 24-point margin.
 
This year, on the eve of the Governor’s State of the State and Budget announcement -- and, again, in the face of a $14-billion budget deficit -- the Governor appears to be eyeing opportunity in crisis and readying yet another run at a controversial spending cap/robocuts scheme.
 

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Working Californians blogs]

Arnold circa 2003, cutting up the state's credit card.

Four years later, Arnold just pushed forward a new budget which puts even more money on our plastic. The only thing he is cutting is aid to the poor, elderly and disabled. The credit card lives on. Walters in the SacBee:

Schwarzenegger and his budget director, Mike Genest, acknowledged that the budget has a $1.5 billion operating deficit -- but that also assumed that the Legislature would go along with $5.4 billion in revenue and spending "solutions" that legislative leaders have denounced. Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill said even those numbers are too optimistic, that the shortfall is actually another $1.7 billion because of overly rosy revenue and spending estimates.

It is not just about the legislature going along with Arnold's sell off of the state's assets. There are real legal issues to be sorted out. The LAO indicates that some of what Arnold wants to do, particularly with transportation funds may be illegal. He is counting on that money to make his figures add up. That accounts for a portion of the difference between the Administration's figures and the LAO's.

read more