So you're saying that local governments have less funds to spend today than they did 15 years ago? I don't think so. Relative to costs, yes. Their funding has

So you're saying that local governments have less funds to spend today than they did 15 years ago? I don't think so. Relative to costs, yes. Their funding has gone up, in general, by less than inflation[1]. Then account for the fact that their costs involve a lot of healthcare benefits that suffer 15% inflation, and relatively few things like electronics that get cheaper over time. When you talk about things like 'ballooned in size', you're really missing the picture. Money that goes straight out of our coffers to the health fund isn't bigger government. It's more money, same amount of government. [1] In my case in Massachusetts, it was strictly 2.5% revenue growth a year, a figure that's less than inflation in most years, certainly in the early 2000s which is the time period I'm talking. Commenters below illustrate a similar picture for California, your favored example.