3 ms·

Prop13 was a big tax cut. The people behind it were minimal government conservative libertarians. And the state did slash spending in the years following. In

by lokar 1mo ago

Prop13 was a big tax cut. The people behind it were minimal government conservative libertarians. And the state did slash spending in the years following. In particular funding for the university system was hit very hard.

MarkusQ 1mo ago
They did not slash spending. At most the rate of increase slowed down for a year or so before continuing to rise at an even faster rate. https://dof.ca.gov/about-us/history/state-budgets/ https://dof.ca.gov/about-us/history/state-budgets/
- lokar 1mo ago
  That’s not a great measure. The state was still growing very fast. The better metric would be state expenditure as a fraction of state gdp
  - MarkusQ 1mo ago
    It's exactly the right measure to use if the claim is that they "slashed spending". They didn't. They continued increase may or may not have kept pace with other measures (GDP, population, whatever). But they didn't slash spending. As it turns out, even your new goal posts fail the test of facts. In the years immediately following prop 13, the GDP grew at an APR < 15% [1] while the budget grew and an APR > 15% [2]. The per capita spending did slump briefly in the early 1980s (as shown in the graph on this article[3]) but that was more of a reversion-to-the-trend (which continued upwards thereafter. While there may be some remaining tortured reading of the data under which you could claim they "slashed spending" it would be manifestly disingenuous to do so. At best the rate of increase slowed briefly. [1] https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/276991-2/attachment/cSe45La_YO0WUjW4Y5azw4iX48kehshIhs9lgBnp37o69_wnVCfcxGvCFZ8N_xjYa4wUTSxp2OtecF3m0 https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/276991-2/attachment/cSe45La... [2] https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/California%20State%20Budget%20History%20-%20Bills%20and%20Chapters.pdf https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/Ca... [3] https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/24/whats-behind-californias-skyrocketing-spending-and-68-billion-deficit/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/24/whats-behind-californ...

by lokar 1mo ago

MarkusQ 1mo ago

They did not slash spending. At most the rate of increase slowed down for a year or so before continuing to rise at an even faster rate. https://dof.ca.gov/about-us/history/state-budgets/ https://dof.ca.gov/about-us/history/state-budgets/

lokar 1mo ago
That’s not a great measure. The state was still growing very fast. The better metric would be state expenditure as a fraction of state gdp
- MarkusQ 1mo ago
  It's exactly the right measure to use if the claim is that they "slashed spending". They didn't. They continued increase may or may not have kept pace with other measures (GDP, population, whatever). But they didn't slash spending. As it turns out, even your new goal posts fail the test of facts. In the years immediately following prop 13, the GDP grew at an APR < 15% [1] while the budget grew and an APR > 15% [2]. The per capita spending did slump briefly in the early 1980s (as shown in the graph on this article[3]) but that was more of a reversion-to-the-trend (which continued upwards thereafter. While there may be some remaining tortured reading of the data under which you could claim they "slashed spending" it would be manifestly disingenuous to do so. At best the rate of increase slowed briefly. [1] https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/276991-2/attachment/cSe45La_YO0WUjW4Y5azw4iX48kehshIhs9lgBnp37o69_wnVCfcxGvCFZ8N_xjYa4wUTSxp2OtecF3m0 https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/276991-2/attachment/cSe45La... [2] https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/California%20State%20Budget%20History%20-%20Bills%20and%20Chapters.pdf https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/Ca... [3] https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/24/whats-behind-californias-skyrocketing-spending-and-68-billion-deficit/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/24/whats-behind-californ...