All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.
So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”
How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.
In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************
What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?[/quote]
Believe it or not, I actually agree 100% with your idea, dave.
