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

[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.

[Anonymous]

Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.

[Anonymous]

Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.

[Anonymous]

Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.

[Anonymous]

Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.

[Anonymous]

Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[jonnycsd]

[quote=pri_dk]Relative to other states. CA spending per capita is neither high nor low:

http://www.statehealthfactsonline.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1

(BTW: Note that no other state even comes close to the Socialist Republic of Alaska.)

Of course it doesn’t really matter what we spend relative to other states. What matters is what we spend relative to our own revenue. And that is definitely fubar.[/quote]

Agree on the FUBAR nature of Cali state budget.

The link to Kaiser seems to cover only spending at the state level only, and does not include local governemnt, right? Which would exclude property and some sales tax revenue? The analysis posted by the OP (me) combined local and state spending. Does combining the two make sense to you guys?

That analysis says the combined state and local spending went from about $8,500 per person in 1999 to about $12,000 per person in 2009. If correct, it seems we should be getting a TON more in services, but I dont see it. In fact it seems services have declined. I have no data on that, just my perception.

[AK]

Keep in mind also that 1992 was the nadir of a crippling recession and a time of draconian state budget cuts.

[AK]

Keep in mind also that 1992 was the nadir of a crippling recession and a time of draconian state budget cuts.

[AK]

Keep in mind also that 1992 was the nadir of a crippling recession and a time of draconian state budget cuts.

[AK]

Keep in mind also that 1992 was the nadir of a crippling recession and a time of draconian state budget cuts.

[Author]

Posts