| | |

The Horror, The Horror, the State Budget


The Legislative Analyst has come out with his budget outlook. Guess what? It’s a horror story. In rough terms, last year’s budget (with all the trickery involved) was “balanced” in the sense of inflows = outflows. But it contained a legacy of past sin to the tune of about $6 billion. The budget recently enacted for this year is also roughly “balanced,” but it also carries forward the $6 billion in past sins. So if that were the extent of the problem, we would probably do what Schwarzenegger did when he took office, i.e., finance the past sins by some kind of borrowing plan. The difference is that when Schwarzenegger took office, the economy and the budget outlook were improving. So if the past sins were dealt with, the future would take care of itself.

Incoming Gov. Brown has a different problem. He has past sins to deal with. But the budget outlook is deteriorating, not improving. Even if the economy slowly improves, a chunk of tax revenue that was approved on a temporary basis in Feb. 2009 goes away. Recall that voters declined to extend the temporary tax increases in May 2009.

Brown kept saying in the campaign that there would be no new taxes unless voters approved. The definition of “new” might provide some wiggle room since the temporary tax increases might be defined as “old.” However, the 2/3 vote would apply, regardless of what you call them. And 2/3 is not on offer in the legislature.

So the idea of voters approving is what remains. Essentially, he could go back to voters with a repeat of what they rejected in May 2009. That is iffy, but they might respond to horror stories such as massive prison releases for fiscal reasons. (Charlie Manson? Sirhan Sirhan?)

Brown faced a major problem in 1978 when Prop 13 passed. But he had built up a very large reserve with the “frugality” he touted in the campaign plus a lot of inflation-based revenue that came in during the late 1970s. Needless to say, there is no such reserve now. In fact, as noted above, the reserve is in negative territory.

I would not expect the state to be kicking money into the UC pension plan any time soon. The LAO projects that the state will provide in nominal dollars roughly what UC gets this year. And while the report takes note of the fact that the state is not contributing to the pension, it assumes it will continue not to do so.

I would expect tuition to be going up. So does the LAO.

You can find the report at http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2010/bud/fiscal_outlook/fiscal_outlook_2010.pdf

The LAO has a video presentation below:

Or, more concisely:

Similar Posts

  • |

    Report: Affordable Public Higher Education is Possible Today

    A report this week from Reclaim California Higher Education (a coalition of faculty and student groups) makes the case that affordable (even free) higher education is within reach for California. The privatization experiment has failed. The harm to a generation of hard-working, high-aiming young people is proven. It’s time to return to what works: the proven Master Plan for higher education in California. California, with its own resources, can afford to restore top-quality, accessible, affordable college and university opportunity to every qualified student. In fact, Californians can afford nothing less. You can read a summary and download the entire report…

  • | |

    Academic Senate Rejects New Pension Tier

    Representatives of UC faculty on all campuses delivered a strongly worded rejection of the proposed 2016 pension tier. Reports from the campuses were extensive and overwhelmingly negative (link to PDF). Berkeley faculty called the proposal “imprudent and potentially fiscally irresponsible.” Davis faculty said, “It is a myth that UCRP is too generous,” and went on to detail a long list of likely negative outcomes from the new tier. Irvine faculty noted “the level of disappointment and depth of passion expressed from all quarters about the negative impact that the imposition of the PEPRA cap has on the future of the…

  • |

    Faculty Voice Opposition to Pension Proposal

    On Friday, the UCLA Academic Senate hosted an informational meeting that explained in clear terms that this is a bad, bad plan for faculty. What to do about it was less clear cut. Shane White gave a deeply detailed account of financial aspects of the plan (Slides here: Pension Presentation by Shane White). Among the things we learned: Last year’s budget deal introduced the “PEPRA cap” to UC retirement benefits. This is not a limit on retirement pay-outs, but a cap on the earnings that are used to calculate retirement pay-outs. So any new hire after July 1, 2016 who…

  • | | |

    Pension Changes Proposed: lower benefits, little savings, weaker UCRS

    The University of California will soon have a third pension tier if the Regents approve a plan put forth by the Retirement Options Task Force on Friday. UC President Janet Napolitano charged the Task Force, which included management and Academic Senate representatives, with finding a way to implement her agreement with Gov. Brown to set a cap on pension benefits in exchange for state funds to support the pension system. Over the weekend, as faculty activists read the task force report and a second report produced by Senate leaders (Guide to reviewing the recommendations of the Retirement Options Task Force)…

  • | | |

    The Degradation of Faculty Welfare and Compensation

    Colleen Lye and James Vernon (UC Berkeley Faculty Association) UC faculty need to wake up to the systematic degradation of their pay and benefits.  In 2009, when the salary furlough temporarily cut faculty salaries between 6 and 10%, faculty were outraged.  Yet since then our compensation has been hit by a more serious, and seemingly permanent, double blow. First, despite modest salary rises of 3% and 2% in October 2011 and July 2013, faculty take-home pay has been effectively cut as employee contributions to pension and healthcare have escalated.  Faculty now pay more for retirement and healthcare programs that offer less.  Secondly, faculty are…