News

In the Governor’s 2015-16 budget proposal, the administration raises its revenue estimates, and this results in a multibillion-dollar influx of new funds for schools and community colleges under the Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee. The Governor’s plan identifies cost pressures and budget risks in health and human services programs, and new program commitments outside of Proposition 98 are limited. The Governor’s proposal to pay off the state’s retiree health liabilities over the next few decades would, if funded, address the last of state government’s large unaddressed liabilities. We conclude the state likely will collect more tax revenue in 2014-15 than the administration now estimates. Barring a sustained stock market drop, an additional 2014-15 revenue gain of $1 billion to $2 billion seems likely in addition to the Governor’s budget projection. Even bigger gains of a few billion dollars more are possible in 2014-15. These additional 2014-15 revenues will go largely or entirely to schools and community colleges and could result in a few billion dollars of higher ongoing state payments to schools. Whether tax revenues grow further, stagnate, or, in the worst case, decline in 2015-16 will depend in large part on trends in volatile capital gains and business income.

Income inequality is in the headlines these days, and attention to this huge and growing problem is welcome. But to focus on inequality in income alone is to take a narrow view of the problem and what’s at stake. Mutually reinforcing inequalities in health, education, environment, neighborhood conditions, wealth, and political power have created an opportunity divide that higher wages alone cannot bridge.

A new analysis from the California Budget Project (CBP) looks at how California could create its own state EITC and shows that a refundable state credit could provide an economic boost for more than 3 million households. In addition, a state EITC would help rebalance California’s tax system, under which low-income families currently pay an outsize share of their incomes in state and local taxes, and would also strengthen our state’s social safety net.

Premium rate indices are calculated based on data from 51 jurisdictions, for rates in effect as of Jan. 1, 2014. The 2014 median value is $1.85, which is a drop of 2 percent from the $1.88 median of the 2012 study. Oregon’s premium rate index is $1.37 per $100 of payroll, or 74 percent of the national median. National premium rate indices range from a low of $0.88 in North Dakota, to a high of $3.48 in California.

Economic activity in the Twelfth District continued to improve moderately during the reporting period of mid-August through late September. Overall price and wage inflation remained modest. Retail sales grew slightly, and demand for business and consumer services increased moderately. Overall manufacturing activity picked up, while agricultural conditions were mixed. Real estate activity advanced, but growth in the residential sector varied across the District. Loan demand increased moderately.

While progress in the national and state economies has boosted confidence, optimism on the part of both consumers and businesses has been tempered by caution. Following a 3.0% increase in 2013, nonfarm jobs are expected to increase by 2.2% in both 2014 and in 2015. The unemployment rate will fall from 8.9% in 2013 to 7.5% this year and 7.0% in 2015. With continued improvement in the labor market, both personal income and total taxable sales should increase by four to five percent in each of the next two years.

The California Tax Foundation on October 1 released the state’s first comprehensive study of California parcel taxes, identifying more than $1.9 billion in parcel taxes imposed annually on property owners.

Providing California families and businesses the infrastructure we must build to make possible the future they want, will require a 15-year investment estimated at $500 billion or more. The question is not whether we make that investment. It’s imperative we make it: After all, more than 38 million people live in California today, but we’ll have 50 million neighbors by the end of the next decade. The question is how we make the investment affordable.

The State has to be smarter about the way it plans and finances infrastructure development. Our current approach is too ad hoc. Voters and the Legislature authorize bonds for particular programs with little thought given to how those bonds fit into a larger infrastructure picture. We need to think longer-term and more strategically. Along those lines, my office has proposed the State develop a 25-year infrastructure master plan that would prioritize projects and provide a financing blueprint. We still think that’s a good idea.

Long-term state and local infrastructure financing also should be more fully incorporated into the year-by-year budget process. It should be stacked up against other public services, prioritized relative to those services and funded commensurate with that priority. State, local, Federal and private funding sources need to be considered and carefully coordinated to get the best infrastructure for Californians at the lowest possible cost.

This report provides an overview of the demographic, social, and economic characteristics of California’s population. Topics include income, poverty, education, health insurance coverage, language, place of birth, migration, and more. The tabulations in this report are based on special data runs from the American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample 1-year file. 

Driving on deficient roads costs California motorists a total of $44 billion annually in the form of additional vehicle operating costs (VOC), congestion-related delays and traffic crashes.

In 2013, exports of goods and services directly and indirectly supported an estimated 11.3 million U.S. jobs. Goods exports which consist of manufactured products, agricultural products, natural resources, and used/ second hand products supported 7.1 million jobs while the export of services accounted for the remaining 4.2 million jobs supported nationally.

While the outlook for California’s jobseekers is considerably better than in recent years, substantial challenges remain. Unemployment remains high in many regions across the state, and persistent weakness in the public sector job market is undermining the overall strength of the economic recovery. Moreover, the current extended period of economic growth follows decades of wage stagnation and Great Recession will not be suffi cient to ensure broad-based economic growth that reaches workers across the wage distribution.

California’s per-job costs are higher than every other Western state, and most other large states. The high cost of creating additional jobs puts California at a substantial competitive disadvantage when attempting to retain or attract businesses that have a choice where to locate.

This report details how these nine Summit proposals are the foundation for rebuilding California’s struggling middle class and restoring upward mobility. It also highlights a wealth of opportunities for the Summit’s seven action teams to engage and collaborate to make them a reality.

A first-time analysis of projects that applied to the Program but were denied due to insufficient availability of tax credits. Of those projects that were subsequently produced, a small minority elected to shoot in California without benefit of the Program. Instead, the overwhelming majority of projects denied for California tax credits opted to shoot outside the state in jurisdictions where tax credits are available.