Skip to main content

A Brief Lesson In Why California is Economically Dysfunctional

State budget woes grow deeper as rosy projections come up short

Washington hasn't come to the rescue. Hopes for a tax windfall were dashed last month.

As the reality of a $20 billion deficit sets in, California leaders are bracing for another summer of difficult state budget talks.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will kick off serious budget discussions Friday with his May budget revision.

(Emphasis mine.)

The California state budget process looks something like this:

  • By January 10 of every year, the Governor presents his state budget to the Legislature (California Constitution Article 4 Section 12(a)).
  • The Legislature hashes at it.
  • By mid-May, the Governor submits his May revise, the “revise” taking into account changes in the economy, shifting spending priorities, etc.
  • The Legislature resumes chewing.
  • The Legislature must pass the budget bill by June 15 (California Constitution Article 4 Section 12(c)(3)).
  • El Guv has certain line item veto authority, but in general he either approves or rejects. Generally, they sign.
  • The budget goes into effect July 1.

All of that is in the state constitution. This timeline is a mystery to no one.

Except the state Legislature and the Sacramento Bee, that is.

The May revise isn’t supposed to “kick off” serious discussions, it’s supposed to be part of the on-going discussions. “Serious discussions” aren’t supposed to begin in the summer, they should have been going on all spring. Summer is when the budget goes into effect.

Instead, the Governor is telling the Governor of Arizona how to run her state, while the California Legislature is handling vital issues, like deciding who to name a highway after. Starting tomorrow, they may opt to start doing the job they should have started on January 11.

And this is why the California budget is a cesspool.

Here endeth the lesson.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that
Post a Comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.
Post a Comment
Read more