Budget analyst: California faces huge challenges through 2015 amid slow economic recovery

By Judy Lin, AP
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

California faces $20B deficits for years to come

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Despite multiple attempts to balance California’s budget, the state can still expect to confront shortfalls approaching $20 billion during each of the next five years, according to a long-range forecast released Wednesday.

The report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warned that the nation’s most populous state will face huge fiscal challenges even as the national economic outlook improves and the state economy heads toward a recovery in a year or two.

In his report, Mac Taylor, the Legislature’s nonpartisan budget analyst, urged Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers to act swiftly on permanent solutions by making deeper reductions in all state programs and looking to raise revenue.

“The sooner they act, the better,” Taylor said. “Because often times, it takes a few months to implement expenditure reduction. They’re going to have to focus on long-lasting solutions.”

The report, intended to help lawmakers craft the new budget for the fiscal year starting next July, elicited partisan response from lawmakers that will likely set the stage for another round of a long budget fight.

California will face a nearly $21 billion budget gap over the next year and a half, extending a fiscal crisis that already has led to steep cuts to public schools, social services and health programs. The projected deficit amounts to nearly a quarter of the state’s $84.6 billion general fund budget.

In anticipation of more budget troubles, a committee of the Board of Regents at the University of California system moved Wednesday to increase student fees by 32 percent over two years. The full board will decide Thursday whether to approve fee increases by $2,500 in two stages by 2010.

In his state forecast, Taylor blamed the recession and poor decisions by the governor and state lawmakers during the past year. Many of the steps they said would patch previous budget deficits have failed, creating a $6.3 billion hole in the current fiscal year ending June 30.

“We are concerned that a lot of solutions just aren’t panning out,” Taylor said.

The shortfall will expand to $14.4 billion for fiscal year 2010-11, forcing state leaders to make even more painful cuts, he said. The forecast assumes no cost-of-living increases for state workers and programs. Increases were suspended by the Legislature this year.

Schwarzenegger, who was in Italy on Wednesday, said he does not think the state should raise taxes, despite the widening gap. He has warned the toughest cuts are still ahead because the temporary tax increases will begin to expire at the end of 2010, while federal stimulus spending will begin to run out a year after that.

“I think it is very important that we do not raise taxes,” he said. “I think it would be bad for the economy right now. We have to live within our means.”

Democratic leaders who control a majority of the state Legislature indicated they would look to taxes to help bridge the gap.

“The numbers cry loudly for California to focus on rebuilding our tax base,” said Senate Majority Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. “We need to protect our schools and universities, so as we create high-wage jobs, we produce a workforce able to fill them.”

Assembly Republican Caucus Chair Cameron Smyth, R-Santa Clarita, said members of the minority party — whose votes are needed to muster a two-thirds majority to pass a tax increase — have no appetite for such hikes.

“This deficit will not be solved on the backs of California taxpayers,” Smyth said in a statement.

Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, said the state should reconsider a proposal to allow off-shore drilling, which would boost revenues for years to come, and repealing burdensome regulations.

Taylor did not lay out specific remedies but offered strategic advice. He suggested lawmakers consider closing tax exemptions and extending temporary taxes such as the 1 percent vehicle license fee while seeking longer-lasting and more realistic budget cuts.

They also should consider asking voters to override previous ballot initiatives involving early childhood development, after-school programs and mental health to give lawmakers greater budget flexibility.

The options for Schwarzenegger and lawmakers are limited to spending cuts, higher taxes or borrowing. Tax cuts and borrowing appear to be in disfavor after taxes were raised earlier this year and tens of billions of dollars were added to the state’s credit card during Schwarzenegger’s tenure.

Since February, California has made nearly $60 billion in adjustments over two fiscal years. Those have taken the form of cuts to education and social service programs, temporary tax hikes, and adding money from the federal stimulus package.

____

Associated Press Writer Colleen Barry in Milan contributed to this report.

Discussion

WorriedInLA
November 19, 2009: 11:46 am

Sadly, it’s no surprise California is in so much trouble. For years, our politicians have been over regulating, overtaxing, and creating a hostile business environment. It’s been said many times before; California doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem! Instead of creating tax hikes to take more money away from Californians, why can’t politicians take some responsibility for how they spend our money that they already have? Government can accomplish plenty of its goals by cutting waste and remembering that it exists to serve its citizens and not itself. Sacramento legislators aren’t the only offenders. We must look no further than L.A. County to see a massive amount of waste being generated for no better reason than politicians bowing to a company who lines their pockets with campaign money.

Last year, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services procured for vendor services to operate the county’s GAIN case management services (essentially a welfare to work program). Two bids came in from the incumbent company (Maximus, Inc.) and newcomer Policy Studies Inc. (PSI). Both were scored by a neutral third party, and PSI beat Maximus solidly in several categories, including performance and bid price. Maximus protested the results, but they were upheld on 3 levels and PSI was recommended by DPSS to receive the contract.

The Board of Supervisors disagreed. They rejected the recommendation with 3 votes. They claimed the process of consensus scoring somehow concealed bias from the DPSS, though no specific evidence of this bias was ever presented. Furthermore, this scoring process was documented as a valid process which had been used for years prior to 2008, and the same process whereby the incumbent Maximus had been recommended and awarded. The BOS then directed the DPSS to extend Maximus’ contract for 6 months while they reissue the RFP and devise a new scoring method. Why the complete 180 now?

The BOS also expressed some superficial concern that the cost of the contract may exceed county requirements (see County Prop A). Although language could’ve easily been built into the contract to ensure cost neutrality/savings, the BOS rejected that argument and asked DPSS to review their contract monitoring costs for possible reductions and eliminate or reduce pay for performance provisions that could drive up the overall contract cost should the vendor outperform expectations.

The reissue of this RFP makes no fiscal sense whatsoever, particularly given the dire state of California’s economy. What’s more, the state faces federal penalties to the tune of approximately $185 million if they do not meet a preexisting federal threshold. Why is the BOS insisting on spending MORE of our tax dollars in an effort to maintain their business relationship with Maximus - a company whose performance was scored lower and contract priced higher than PSI? (The county has estimated the cost to reissue the RFP to be $250,000). If PSI had been chosen, their contract would save the county over one million dollars annually. What’s going on here?

An LA Times article from last year exposed just how entangled Maximus is with the BOS. In the first half of 2008, Maximus spent over $124,000 on two lobbying firms, more than doubling what they spent on marketing in the past year. Perhaps even more troubling, Maximus donated $1,000 (the maximum allowed) to the campaigns to re-elect supervisors Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich. They even gave $1,000 to two members whose terms had 2 years left to run. Apparently, the BOS would rather take $1,000 of easy money than save the taxpayers over a million dollars a year. The math doesn’t add up.

In these lean times, the board ought to re-examine their motivation because it’s certainly not focused on the bottom line.

YOUR VIEW POINT
NAME : (REQUIRED)
MAIL : (REQUIRED)
will not be displayed
WEBSITE : (OPTIONAL)
YOUR
COMMENT :