[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

A poll released earlier this week shows 91% of Democrats, 85% of independents, and 61% of Republicans support strong state action to implement a reduction in greenhouse gases as required by the landmark bill passed by the legislature in 2006 and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger. The clear findings of this poll show that likely California voters not only support this action, but that they feel reducing global warming is very important to the future of the state, and that candidates and legislators who oppose action may not fare too well with the voters this fall.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Fabian Nunez
Speaker Emeritus of the California Assembly

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By State Senator Sheila Kuehl

This is my third essay on the California budget. My first essay set out some background information on actions taken by the legislature http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/first_in_a_seri.htmlto re-balance the 2007-2008 budget given shrinking revenues. The second reviewed the Governor’s budget as he presented it in January of this year. http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/05/second_in_a_ser.html This essay will present the changes made by the Governor in his May revision of the 2008-09 budget, usually referred to as the “May Revise”.

Changes in Projected Revenue

Things went from bad to worse in the new estimates of state revenues projected for the July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009 budget year, which reduced expectations by another 6 billion dollars. Although $7 billion in “solutions” had been adopted to balance the 2007-08 budget (see my second essay for this year), rising costs combined with dropping revenues to widen the shortfall to 15 billion dollars in the latest projections.

Changes in Expenditures

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Steve Cummings
Author,
Red States, Blue States, and the Coming Sharecropper Society

One of the issues that I discussed extensively in the first part of Red States, Blue States and the Coming Sharecropper Society is the concept of red state and blue state economic cultures, and their impact on the economies of the various states and regions of the country. In looking at the California state budget and the approaches that the Democrats and Republicans are taking, the budget highlights the nature of red state and blue state cultures, their historical roots, and how they affect us today.

In brief, the economic systems of both cultures date back to colonial times, with the red state culture centered in the South and the blue state culture centered in New England. Both cultures migrated from their base to other parts of the country and today we see these economic models functioning as they spread to what are generally called red and blue states (although people may have different lists that comprise these states).

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By State Senator Sheila Kuehl

This is my second essay on the California budget. The first set out some background information on California’s budget, beginning with the actions taken on the 2007-2008 budget earlier this year. This essay will set out the 2008-2009 budget originally proposed by the Governor in January. Following essays will detail the new budget proposals contained in the May Revision (usually called the May Revise) to the January budget, divided into sections by subject matter along with analyses of the winners, the losers, the false scares, the posturing, and some possible conclusions.

The Governor’s original budget, as introduced in January, for 2008-09

The Governor’s budget seemed to have been introduced with the aim of scaring the lights out of every segment of California. Education was slashed. Parks were to be closed. Health and human services were proposed to be decimated (actually more, as “decimated”, from the root “dec”, means to cut by one tenth). Every department, tasked with enforcing every kind of California law, was proposed for a 10% cut, which would have pretty much guaranteed no serious enforcement at all.

Why so dire? Income

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By State Senator Sheila Kuehl

This essay will set out some background information on California’s budget this year beginning with the actions taken on the 2007-2008 budget earlier this year. The next essay will set out the budget proposed by the Governor in January, highlighting those issues he later changed his mind about. Following essays will detail the new budget proposals contained in the May Revision (usually called the May Revise) to the January budget, divided into sections by subject matter along with analyses of the winners, the losers, the false scares, the posturing, and some possible conclusions.

What budget are we talking about here?

Just as a reminder, the California budgets run from July 1 of any year to June 30 of the next year. Last August, 2007, the Governor and the Legislature finally agreed on the 2007-2008 budget, which was balanced through deep cuts in social services, borrowing from special funds and no new taxes or fees. By the time the Legislature returned from end-of-the-year time in our districts, the budget, as expected, since no long-term solutions had been adopted, was again out of balance. Revenues to the state had dropped precipitously as income dropped, capital gains dropped and sales tax revenues went down as families tightened their belts.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Peter Schrag

Old news: Like most other major state programs, California's public universities and colleges are up against devastating budget cuts in the coming year, and probably longer. Those cuts will drive up fees, force larger classes and eliminate courses, services and programs.

What's new is the increasing certainty among a growing number of people that the funding compacts the universities made with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during the last fiscal crisis put them on a long-term downward trajectory that will continue to erode quality, limit access and permanently damage what for decades was the nation's premier system of public higher education.

In the view of one of those people, professor Stanton Glantz, a researcher at the UC medical school in San Francisco and former chair of UC's faculty Committee on Planning and Budget, the compacts were "a giant political blunder."

The agreements promised long-term fiscal stability in return for short-term cuts. In fact, they cut UC's base funding in the expectation that the university would make up the difference in student fees and private contributions. But Glantz says the gap is too great: "You can't fundraise your way out of it."

The only alternative, absent more state funding, would be enormous fee increases.