4 ms·

California state spending doubled between 1996 and 2006. The problem is not that not enough money can be taken from the taxpayer. I think whoever and however

California state spending doubled between 1996 and 2006. The problem is not that not enough money can be taken from the taxpayer. I think whoever and however things are decided, spending with debt ought to be as hard as spending with tax money. And this practice where you work tons of overtime in your last year and get paid extra for those hours for the rest of your life is simple thievery. Who in their right mind would agree to pay for such a thing?

_delirium 16y ago
In nominal terms yes, but over that period, there was also inflation, population growth, and a rise in standards of living. If you look at state spending as a percentage of state GDP, it's pretty flat from 1996-2006, basically wobbling on either side of 20%, until the current recession when it jumps up to ~25%. 1995: 19.7% 2000: 18.2% 2005: 20.8% 2008: 22.3% 2010 (est): 24.8% Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=CA&color=c&local=s http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=19...
- anamax 16y ago
  State GDP is a strange way to measure things. For example, Google's growth doesn't cause a proportional growth in the demand for govt services. If anything, Google's grown decreases said demand through the economic activity multiplier. (Folks who benefit from that growth spend money, which employs people and so on.)
  - _delirium 16y ago
    I agree there are other ways, but it's a vague proxy for inflation+population+standards of living, and I don't currently have available a better proxy. If government spending is staying constant as a proportion of GDP, it just means that government services are growing exactly in line with everything else, with an unchanged private:public sector balance. You can't just use inflation, because if, say, median wages rise faster than inflation, then the cost to the government of the same amount of labor will typically rise faster than inflation as well. (This is one reason Alabama has low spending, because cost of living, land, and prevailing wages in Alabama are low.) What people expect out of government services also rises roughly with GDP: a spectrum from poor countries, where not having A/C in government offices is fine, as are overburdened slow trains and pot-hole-filled roads, to advanced countries, where people start wanting things like internet-enabled services, high-speed rail, and modern freeways.
    - anamax 16y ago
      CA got its modern freeways in the 70s. It failed to maintain them. > You can't just use inflation, because if, say, median wages rise faster than inflation, then the cost to the government of the same amount of labor will typically rise faster than inflation as well. You can, however, look at spending on existing programs and new programs separately. On existing programs, you look at why you spent more - was to maintain the same level of service, to pay more, or to expand. With new programs, you can ask similar questions.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > What people expect out of government services also rises roughly with GDP While true, that's not a factor over a short period of time. Seriously - do you really think that our expectations of state govt changed by 20% over a couple of years? CA's govt spending exploded with the economy because it could. We're now in trouble because we don't seem to be able to contract it the same way.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    Exactly.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  What if GDP is just measuring all those houses being built that could not really be afforded? State spending looks great compared to GDP when enormous amounts of money are being borrowed and spent in the state on Internet and housing bubbles. But why should such a measure be used to decide whether we are getting good value for our money? If anything, the state should be getting leaner with the application of technology that is cutting costs everywhere else.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Is there macro-scale evidence for the latter part of your assertion? I can't think of other sectors that are getting smaller as a percentage of GDP as a result of technology cutting costs--- not even other service/overhead sectors that are vaguely comparable to government in the sense of just providing infrastructure. For example, you might say, "if anything, the financial sector should be getting leaner with the application of technology that is cutting costs everywhere else", but the financial sector has massively grown as a percentage of GDP (much faster than government has).
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      So you don't believe industries can get more efficient when technology is applied? This has to be proven? Over time, the number of sectors in the economy has grown. This can only happen because on average each takes a smaller percentage of the total economy. Yes, they produce more now than when they began. But that is BECAUSE of the application of technology. The financial sector grew fat with cheap money supplied by the Federal Reserve. Its risks have been passed on to people with have no choice in the matter, the future taxpayer. And government is currently helping to hide the bad news. Both government and finance have grown fat on other people's money, people have not yet gotten the total bill.

_delirium 16y ago

In nominal terms yes, but over that period, there was also inflation, population growth, and a rise in standards of living. If you look at state spending as a percentage of state GDP, it's pretty flat from 1996-2006, basically wobbling on either side of 20%, until the current recession when it jumps up to ~25%. 1995: 19.7% 2000: 18.2% 2005: 20.8% 2008: 22.3% 2010 (est): 24.8% Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=CA&color=c&local=s http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=19...

anamax 16y ago
State GDP is a strange way to measure things. For example, Google's growth doesn't cause a proportional growth in the demand for govt services. If anything, Google's grown decreases said demand through the economic activity multiplier. (Folks who benefit from that growth spend money, which employs people and so on.)
- _delirium 16y ago
  I agree there are other ways, but it's a vague proxy for inflation+population+standards of living, and I don't currently have available a better proxy. If government spending is staying constant as a proportion of GDP, it just means that government services are growing exactly in line with everything else, with an unchanged private:public sector balance. You can't just use inflation, because if, say, median wages rise faster than inflation, then the cost to the government of the same amount of labor will typically rise faster than inflation as well. (This is one reason Alabama has low spending, because cost of living, land, and prevailing wages in Alabama are low.) What people expect out of government services also rises roughly with GDP: a spectrum from poor countries, where not having A/C in government offices is fine, as are overburdened slow trains and pot-hole-filled roads, to advanced countries, where people start wanting things like internet-enabled services, high-speed rail, and modern freeways.
  - anamax 16y ago
    CA got its modern freeways in the 70s. It failed to maintain them. > You can't just use inflation, because if, say, median wages rise faster than inflation, then the cost to the government of the same amount of labor will typically rise faster than inflation as well. You can, however, look at spending on existing programs and new programs separately. On existing programs, you look at why you spent more - was to maintain the same level of service, to pay more, or to expand. With new programs, you can ask similar questions.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > What people expect out of government services also rises roughly with GDP While true, that's not a factor over a short period of time. Seriously - do you really think that our expectations of state govt changed by 20% over a couple of years? CA's govt spending exploded with the economy because it could. We're now in trouble because we don't seem to be able to contract it the same way.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  Exactly.
stretchwithme 16y ago
What if GDP is just measuring all those houses being built that could not really be afforded? State spending looks great compared to GDP when enormous amounts of money are being borrowed and spent in the state on Internet and housing bubbles. But why should such a measure be used to decide whether we are getting good value for our money? If anything, the state should be getting leaner with the application of technology that is cutting costs everywhere else.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Is there macro-scale evidence for the latter part of your assertion? I can't think of other sectors that are getting smaller as a percentage of GDP as a result of technology cutting costs--- not even other service/overhead sectors that are vaguely comparable to government in the sense of just providing infrastructure. For example, you might say, "if anything, the financial sector should be getting leaner with the application of technology that is cutting costs everywhere else", but the financial sector has massively grown as a percentage of GDP (much faster than government has).
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    So you don't believe industries can get more efficient when technology is applied? This has to be proven? Over time, the number of sectors in the economy has grown. This can only happen because on average each takes a smaller percentage of the total economy. Yes, they produce more now than when they began. But that is BECAUSE of the application of technology. The financial sector grew fat with cheap money supplied by the Federal Reserve. Its risks have been passed on to people with have no choice in the matter, the future taxpayer. And government is currently helping to hide the bad news. Both government and finance have grown fat on other people's money, people have not yet gotten the total bill.