California went from a surplus to a deficit under Newsome

Do you have a little black book of excuses? Kind of like the old sales book of overcoming objections?

 

A panel has recommended it. Would be surprised if the Dems in their legislature didn’t now try to move it forward, but you never know.

Cash for slavery reparations in California draws cool response from Newsom

 

A lot of deflection in this thread. But but but what about republicans?

 

So they ran a $100 billion surplus for one year under Newsome (hardly his first year in power) but we are supposed to use that as a baseline rather than an accomplishment? Why?

 

Unless they rebated last year’s $100b surplus why can’t they use part of it to pay off this year’s deficit? Where did it otherwise go?

Edit-never mind, found this:

In California: Newsom has spending plan for budget surplus $100 million

And from a paywalled article in the SF Chronicle:

“State law required Newsom and state lawmakers to spend much of last year's projected surplus on public schools and reserve accounts. They chose to spend much of the remainder on shoring up the state's social services programs and also sent some of it back to Californians in the form of stimulus payments.”

 

Newsomestan much more apt than Duhsantistan.

 

If you read the piece, you read about responsible serious governance, largely an issue of timing, and recognizing last years surplus was due to non recurring events. Inaccurate to suggest this is the product of prolifigacy or bad forecasting, at least based upon what is detailed by the LA Times. Important to read and reflect

 

Don’t know which is correct or if apples and oranges, but that seems inconsistent with OP link, to wit:


As anticipated, the state’s budget hole deepened from the estimated $22.5-billion shortfall announced in January and marks a dramatic turn from last summer, when Newsom touted a $100-billion surplus.

Newsom and Democrats anticipated a budget deficit and were careful in prior years to mostly avoid establishing costly long-term programs, instead budgeting most of the surplus revenue to one-time funding allocations.

 

The piece I referenced earlier


Brown, who is seventy-nine, is about to serve his final year as governor. (Term limits prevent him from running for reëlection.) His manner is as idiosyncratic as ever, but he is more strategic and more focussed than he was in his first two terms. He has even come to embrace the old-school deal-making favored by his father, Pat Brown, who served as governor from 1959 to 1967. On climate legislation, Brown has collaborated with moderate Republicans, even when that has meant sacrificing the most far-reaching ambitions of some environmental groups. He also worked to make sure that the state’s police chiefs would not oppose the “sanctuary-state” law.


Canoe politics has paid off. When Brown began his third term, in 2011, California had not recovered from the Great Recession. The state was running a deficit of twenty-seven billion dollars, unemployment was at twelve per cent, and its credit rating was the lowest of any state in the country. With help from a recovering economy, Brown balanced the budget, first through spending cuts and then with a temporary tax increase. Today, California is in the black and has even banked an emergency fund of eight billion dollars. Unemployment is less than five per cent. Still, there is nothing halcyon about Brown’s vision of the future. At a press conference in January, he unveiled his valedictory budget proposal. Its centerpiece is an addition of five billion dollars to the emergency fund. Brown walked over to a blown-up cardboard graph and made clear that this was no cause for celebration. Pointing to the very end of a red bar that represented his term, he said, with a slight smile, “The next governor is going to be on the cliff. . . . What’s out there is darkness, uncertainty, decline, and recession. So, good luck, baby!”




When Pat Brown began his governorship, Jerry was twenty and a Jesuit novice, honoring vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. In a photograph taken at his father’s office, he is wearing a priest’s black suit and Roman collar. After several years, Brown left the seminary and went to the University of California at Berkeley and then Yale Law School. In a recent interview with the political analyst David Axelrod, he recalled studying for the bar exam on the third floor of the governor’s mansion and, to escape boredom, making his way down the winding staircase until he could eavesdrop on a political argument between his father and Jesse (Big Daddy) Unruh, the speaker of the Assembly. Jerry was transfixed. He thought, That’s what I want to do.

Inside California’s War on Trump
Inside California’s War on Trump

 

Actually in this case many Dems here have used California’s projected surplus as an example of how great their tax system is and how Red states should follow it.

So in this case the evidence of that has less to do with who is in charge and more to do with the current results of their policies.

 

I'll bet tourism is down, and they are hemorrhaging rich tax payers by the thousands. Money coming in is way down for several reasons but these two are not even mentioned as part of the problem.

 

I suspect that the recession has hit them hard. Many people in the industry who made crazy money in the tech industry have taken a hair cut recently. I don’t use that as an excuse for Newsom but don’t blame him either. It is what happens when your revenue is so dependent on income taxes, especially high income. It fluctuates wildly.

 

He essentially was from November 1994 until January 2001, which explains everything. Only GOP politicians treat women badly.

 

I listed out the explanations but maybe you’re right and it’s maga magic.

 

Cool. Let’s bet pink slips.

 

While I disagree, that is funny!!

 

A surplus means you arent spending enough money, glad they got that turned around

 

For a little context keep in mind that Newsom took office 2019. Five years of surpluses followed by a single year of a deficit isn't exactly an indicator of fiscal incompetence and keep in mind that some conservatives who claim that a businessman from the private sector would be a more competent manager than a politician have no problem with a guy who managed six private sector corporations into bankruptcy.

 

Florida is doing just fine.

 

"But but... what about Florida?

Shit, Florida is doing well. Why can't they be as miserable as California so I can have facts that back my narrative?"