Disgusted with the California Budget: 1999 vs 2009 Per Capita Spending

[jonnycsd]

Some interesting analysis on the state budget. I’m curious to know if it passes the Piggington stress test for acuracy and integrity?

—–
Disgusted with the California Budget

kevindick 9:14 pm on May 19, 2009 | 7 Comments Permalink | Reply First, let me apologize for the posting lull. I’ve been busy with work and also struggling with a sinus issue that has sapped my discretionary intellectual energy. But enough about me.

In honor of California’s special election on budget measures, I thought I’d shed a little light on the fundamental problem. Contrary to what polticians are saying, the cause of the budget problem is not falling revenues in a recession. Rather, the cause is a dramatic increase in spending over the last 10 years.

If you live in California, you’ve probably read or seen numerous news stories about all the sacrifices in services we have to make to balance the budget. When I saw them, I became curious about how would go about making these difficult tradeoffs. From a public policy perspective, this is an interesting problem.

I started looking at some historical data to get an idea of the choices we made on the margin in the past. The thinking is that newest spending categories probably have the least benefit. But my analysis went of the tracks very quickly when I discovered just how much spending has ballooned.

In about five minutes of Googling, the problem was obvious. First, I found historical state and local per capital spending here. You have to look at state and local expenditures together in California. There is a lot of transfer of funds back and forth, as evidenced by the budget measures aimed at raiding local coffers for state needs. This data is from the US Census Bureau’s annual survey of State and Local Government Finances (which goes back to 1992). Now, it’s in nominal dollars so I went to Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index calculator to convert everything to 2009 dollars.

Here’s the resulting graph of state spending controlled for both population and inflation from 1992 to 2009:

Part 1
http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/19/disgusted-with-the-california-budget/

Part 2
http://emergentfool.com/2009/05/25/more-on-the-california-state-budget/

[CA renter]

We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. Definitely agree with this.

[CA renter]

We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. Definitely agree with this.

[CA renter]

We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. Definitely agree with this.

[CA renter]

We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. Definitely agree with this.

[CA renter]

We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. Definitely agree with this.

[Eugene]

[quote=CA renter]We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. [/quote]

Even though a few of us brought numbers to demonstrate that California spending per capita is on par with Texas (whose Medicaid is so underfunded that Texas boasts the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the nation, 25%) and below Oregon. But we’re the blue state, therefore we must be spending money out the wazoo. Who needs numbers.

[Eugene]

[quote=CA renter]We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. [/quote]

Even though a few of us brought numbers to demonstrate that California spending per capita is on par with Texas (whose Medicaid is so underfunded that Texas boasts the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the nation, 25%) and below Oregon. But we’re the blue state, therefore we must be spending money out the wazoo. Who needs numbers.

[Eugene]

[quote=CA renter]We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. [/quote]

Even though a few of us brought numbers to demonstrate that California spending per capita is on par with Texas (whose Medicaid is so underfunded that Texas boasts the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the nation, 25%) and below Oregon. But we’re the blue state, therefore we must be spending money out the wazoo. Who needs numbers.

[Eugene]

[quote=CA renter]We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. [/quote]

Even though a few of us brought numbers to demonstrate that California spending per capita is on par with Texas (whose Medicaid is so underfunded that Texas boasts the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the nation, 25%) and below Oregon. But we’re the blue state, therefore we must be spending money out the wazoo. Who needs numbers.

[Eugene]

[quote=CA renter]We’ve discussed these issues in some of our Prop 13 debates, and it seems most of us — no matter which political side we are on — agree that California’s biggest problem is **spending** and not income. [/quote]

Even though a few of us brought numbers to demonstrate that California spending per capita is on par with Texas (whose Medicaid is so underfunded that Texas boasts the highest percentage of people without health insurance in the nation, 25%) and below Oregon. But we’re the blue state, therefore we must be spending money out the wazoo. Who needs numbers.

[EconProf]

Eugene: You are so wrong.
Google State Spending Per Capita.
You will find CA spent $6417 per capita in 2007, while Texas spent $3831.

[EconProf]

Eugene: You are so wrong.
Google State Spending Per Capita.
You will find CA spent $6417 per capita in 2007, while Texas spent $3831.

[EconProf]

Eugene: You are so wrong.
Google State Spending Per Capita.
You will find CA spent $6417 per capita in 2007, while Texas spent $3831.

[EconProf]

Eugene: You are so wrong.
Google State Spending Per Capita.
You will find CA spent $6417 per capita in 2007, while Texas spent $3831.

[Author]

Posts