News

When Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his proposed 2014-15 budget this month – one based on estimates of sharply increased state revenues – a reporter asked him whether, in retrospect, California needed the tax increase he had persuaded voters to approve in 2012.

Brown’s response, in essence, was that the tax boost’s money is needed to pay off the debts that the state had incurred, not only for past budget deficits, but for long-term future obligations that total about $350 billion.

The state’s fiscal history is riddled with budgets that made permanent obligations— both spending increases and tax cuts — based on temporary revenue increases. After these spikes in revenues disappeared — as they always do— the state was forced to cut programs and raise taxes. This Budget seeks to avoid this unproductive boom‑and‑bust cycle. Instead of using one‑time revenues to spend on permanent programs, it instead uses that money to make the state’s first deposit into its Rainy Day Fund since 2007, repay money owed to our schools, pay off the Economic Recovery Bonds sold to balance the budget in 2004, and make one‑time investments to shore up the state’s aging infrastructure. This Budget also proposes a constitutional amendment to strengthen California’s Rainy Day Fund so we can pay off our longer term liabilities and be prepared for any future decreases in revenue.

Mickelson still lives in California, but other wealthy people say they have moved out mainly or partly because of skyrocketing tax rates. Whether you sympathize or not, millionaires’ migrating out of California has serious consequences to the state’s bottom line and is something state leaders are watching closely.

Inside the governor’s 2013-14 budget plan is a proposal to make it easier to for voters to implement infrastructure financing districts, which are similar to redevelopment in that they allow local governments to fund public infrastructure through tax increment financing.

The governor pegs the total 2014-15 budget of the general fund, special funds and bond funds at $154.9 billion, but the real number is well over $200 billion, when federal funds are included. That’s the equivalent of more than 10 percent of California’s entire economic output.

Although his proposed budget would raise general-fund spending by more than 8%, to $106.8 billion, he continued to portray himself Thursday as a necessary check on fellow Democrats eager to spend. For example, Brown declined to commit money for universal preschool, one of lawmakers’ top priorities.

Brown, citing an ever-increasing dependence on taxes from highly volatile capital gains, said he, too, would resist pressures to ramp up permanent spending and wants to divert much new revenue into paying down debt and building up reserves to cushion future downturns.

California ended the 2013 calendar year with a burst of tax receipts as the economic recovery continued to boost jobs, incomes, profits, and spending. Revenues flowing into the State’s General Fund coffers totaled $10.6 billion, beating estimates contained in the 2013-14 Budget Act by a hefty $2.3 billion, or 27.7%.

Pointing to the state’s large pension liabilities, bond costs and other expenses, the governor, a Democrat, described the state’s surplus as “rather modest” in an opening letter addressed to the legislature, according to a copy of the budget posted on the Sacramento Bee’s website. He didn’t give the surplus total in the letter. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office in November predicted a roughly $4.7 billion surplus by June 30.

The governor’s $155-billion blueprint would increase general-fund spending by more than 8%, to $106.8 billion. Brown also wants to repay $11 billion in debts incurred during years of state financial crisis, and he would stash $1.6 billion in a reserve fund as a buffer against future economic turmoil.

Preliminary data from the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) indicate that December 2013 personal income tax (PIT) and corporation tax (CT) revenue collections were a combined $1.6 billion (20 percent) above monthly projections included in the state’s 2013-14 budget plan.

At least 13,000 Los Angeles city employees received a 5.5% raise Wednesday, the final piece of a salary agreement that became a major financial burden during the recent economic downturn. The pay hike means a majority of workers with the Coalition of L.A. City Unions, which represents non-public-safety employees such as clerks, gardeners and mechanics, have received increases totaling 24.5% since 2007, according to city budget officials.

One of the games that politicians and interest groups play is called “economic impact.”

For more than a year, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration has been describing his plan to build two massive water tunnels through the Delta as a $25 billion project.

California reached a high of 256 officers per 100,000 residents in 2008. By 2012, this number had dropped to 236—similar to the national rate of 235, but a significant decline nonetheless. Among police departments statewide, this meant a decrease of 2,903 officers, or 7.2%. Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, and Santa Clara Counties saw the largest drop in police officers, accounting for 47% of all police officer declines. Sheriff departments saw a decline of 1,995 officers, or 6.3 %, statewide. Fresno, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, and San Mateo Counties accounted for 52% of all sheriff losses.