With $76B surplus, California proposes rebates for millions

I call bullshit on the budget surplus.

“The projected $75.7 billion budget surplus is largely due to taxes paid by rich Californians who generally did well during the pandemic, and marks a major turnaround after officials last year said they feared a deficit of more than $50 billion.”

Someone explain to me how California has been running on a deficit for years, they didn’t increase taxes on the rich, the market has been doing approximately as well this past year as it has done the previous 5 years, they have LESS rich people than they did before... and yet they have a $75B surplus during a year where a large part of their economy was shut down.

I call bullshit.

 

Except for 2018? Lol

 

No sir. There was an increase in 2018.

 

Not for CY-18...i.e. the first 12 months after the tax cut.

https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/mts/current.html

CY17 brought in $3,343,634,000,000
CY18 brought in $3,330,470,000,000

Thus....CY18 the Fed Govt brought in $13,164,000,000 less than they did in CY17.

The only reason FY18 shows an increase is because the first 3 months of the FY were before the tax cuts.

 

Why would even be talking about the us treasury in a thread about state budgets?
A: you weren’t but would like to pretend you were.

 

Good point. I get easily distracted... SQUIRREL!!!! Thanks for being me back on topic:

So our irresponsible government overcharged tax payers. Instead of giving it back to those that paid, it is being used to buy votes in the recall election.

Should cheated tax payers be forced to donate to his campaign?

 

Over charged? In deficit years were we under charged? Lol

 

That's not a fact, that is a sentment, an opinion.

Well, in the 50s, one man with a decent job was able to afford a mortgage, a wife who didn't work, a kid or two, a car payment, and taxation was very progressive. No, they didn't pay all of it, but they did pay a lot more than they are paying now. Apparently you are going to become a democrat, welcome aboard!

But, you have it wrong. You vote for officials whom you believe will enact policies you believe in.

No one is going to expect any elected official to please everyone, all the time. There are always going to be tax laws someone doesn't approve of. And, additionally, tax laws are not subject to 'voter approval'. It's the lawmakers you vote for whom you believe in. Just because you voted for someone you thought was going to enact a tax law that was one you approved of, didn't quite happen, see, a funny thing happened to the bill on the way to the president's desk, things like, amendments, compromises from the opposition, and so forth.

That's democracy, at last in the way it's done in America.

No one is suggesting for middle class to pay high taxes. (Not from me, anyway ) But, the governments bills have to be paid.

From a dems viewpiont, We can do this in the following ways:

1. Borrow.
2. Tax progressively based on ability to pay, or flat or flatter tax.
3. Inflate ( deficit spend - fiat currency )

The gov does all three, but where administrations vary is in the degree and proportions of each.

If we do not do 2 (as was the case with Trump's tax bill ) , then 1 and 3 are emboldened, and inflation is paid by those who are unable to, or less able to hedge, which are middle class and poor people. Inflation is, essentially, taxation without representation.

So, if you want as a middle class working person, you should go for a government that borrows less, and deficit spends less, and there is only one kind of government that does that, and that is a government who taxes those who have money. Why? Because that IS where the money is. It IS NOWHERE ELSE, unless, you want to borrow it, or print it, both of which have undesirable outcomes.

Now if you argue 'i want a small government that spends less', from the bottom of my heart, I say to you, that is fantasy, all governments with large populations big spend. Both right and left. In the meantime, we have to tame the beast that is within the realm of what is possible.

 

A certain type of conservative doesn't want their government to do any of those things. These conservatives want their government to kill people they don't like and that is pretty much all. We're returning to the old days of governing wherein all of the country's problems are due to whatever people are not in charge at the moment and the government's main job is to kill these people, who are irretrievably evil by definition. Go ahead say that is hyperbole and then understand that a rather large contingent of Republicans are still quite convinced that all Democrats are pedophile cannibal Satanists, and/or that is a justifiable libel once you understand how much God hates them and/or how they sold us out to the Lizard Men, the Illuminati, and the Posleen.

 

California ran surpluses in 2018 & 2019, so no bullshit to call. Gerry Brown turned around the budget deficits he inherited and left the state's finances in good shape. I get that this doesn't fit the right wing narrative, but there it is.

 

So why didn't the state's debt decrease?


(I will give him a little bit of credit; from 2014-2017 the debt decreased a little bit)

 

Not relevant to the point.

 

Overspent. We're getting screwed, Mello!

 

I understand your position and strongly disagree. It is possible for government to be responsible and if that doesn't happen, its just a matter of time before it collapses. CA is like a peek into the future. With Many cities on the brink of insolvency even before Covid, the current levels of waste and irresponsibility are just not sustainable.

The government is supposed to be the people and here you are pushing a government ruling us and there is nothing we can do about it.

Before I become a Democrat, I have to lock myself in a dark cell where I can't see the horrible damage to society the party is known for and start taking drugs to numb myself to the point of ignoring results. No one with a genuine concern for society would ever place a dollar in the hand of a Democrat.

 

Maybe this time they just under spent.

 

That is the first time I have ever heard a non-politician say that.

 

More damage has been done to America via neoliberalism than any other governing philosophy.

In my view, neoliberalism is the core of the right since Reagan, and toyed with by the left ( mostly by Bill Clinton ).

I have no idea where you get your concepts, but they are wrong. Granted, dems haven't been perfect, but the right has shifted so far to the right they are off the chart.

California? You can't judge national governance by the governance of a state.

If you do that, you are going to come up with wrong answers. If you go by governance of dem versus repub administrations, dems win, hands down. But, you ignore those stats, and the reason you do that is because you are biased.

A state cannot control the fed or issue it's own currency or control interest rates.
Besides, CA has a huge surplus, WTF do you want? Can't win with you.

presidentialdata.org

DEMOCRATS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

This data is compiled by offsetting a President's Administration by a year to account for the fact that the Federal budget for any given fiscal year is drafted and passed in the previous calendar year. For example, 1993's budget was drafted and passed in 1992, during the Bush administration, so that year is assigned to President Bush in this analysis, even though President Clinton was in office in 1993.

One exception has been made: 2009's ARRA was drafted and passed by the Obama administration, creating $114 billion of Federal outlays for 2009. That amount has been subtracted from President Bush's 2009 budget/deficit total and added to President Obama's.

Since World War 2

• More than twice as many jobs are created per year under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents (1.95 million jobs/year under Democratic Presidents versus 825,500 jobs/year under Republican Presidents.)
• Budget deficits under Republican Presidents have been $4 trillion more than under Democratic Presidents.
• Ten of the last eleven recessions have begun under Republican Presidents (www.nber.org/cycles.html)

Since 1962

• GDP growth has been 75% higher under Democratic Presidents.
• Business Investment Growth has been 126% higher under Democratic Presidents.
• Unemployment has been 15% higher under Republican Presidents.
• Average increase in weekly earnings have been positive under Democratic Presidents and negative under Republican Presidents

Job Growth
Democratic Presidents have helped create 21 million more jobs than Republican Presidents, and on year-to-year basis jobs have grown nearly twice as fast under Democratic Presidents as under Republican Presidents.

• Total jobs created under Democratic Presidents: 68,312,000
• Total jobs created under Republican Presidents: 32,194,000
• Average yearly growth in jobs under Democratic Presidents: 1,952,000
• Average yearly growth in jobs under Republican Presidents: 825,500

GDP Growth
Real Gross Domestic Product growth under Democratic Presidents has been 75% higher than during Republican Presidents.

• Average GDP growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 3.50%
• Average GDP growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.02%

Business Investment Growth
Real business investment growth under Democratic Presidents has been 126% higher than under Republican Presidents.

• Average growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 6.6%
• Average growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.92%

Federal Budget Deficits
Federal budget deficits under Republican Presidents collectively are 54% higher than under Democratic Presidents (as a percentage of GDP, Republican Presidents have been 65% higher than Democratic Presidents).

• Democratic Presidents' annual deficits averaged 2.07% of GDP
• Republican Presidents' annual deficits averaged 3.42% of GDP
• Total Democratic Budget Deficits: $8,085.1 billion
• Total Republican Budget Deficits: $12,442.5 billion

Unemployment
Unemployment under Republican Presidents has been 15% higher than under Democratic Presidents.

• Average unemployment per year during Democratic Presidents: 5.59%
• Average unemployment per year during Republican Presidents: 6.43%

Growth In Spending
Federal Spending has increased twice as fast under Republican Presidents than under Democratic Presidents

• Democratic Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $36.9 billion per year
• Republican Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $78.6 billion per year

Balance of Trade
Trade deficits under Republican Presidents have been 39% higher than under Democratic Presidents.

• Total trade deficit under Democratic Administrations (in millions): $5,625,690
• Total trade deficit under Republican Administrations (in millions): $7,042,879

 

California needs to pay off it's pension liability before it starts bragging about having a surplus. That's like me bragging because I saved $100 while having $20 million in unpaid tax bills due next year.

 

You keep saying that and I even watched the video you posted. California is a large enough sample size for the results to be scientifically accurate. I don't expect you to agree, but at least understand. I don't trust the government with any more power than you would trust our previous president with.

 

But they did not decrease their debt.

 

There's no point in surpluses if the debt is just going to keep increasing.

Debt that continuously increases means they can't keep a budget surplus continuously for very long. The deficits exceed the surpluses, averaged over time.

 

Another poster claimed California was always running deficits and thus this surplus must be 'bullshit'. I pointed out the factual innacuracy that post contained. If you want to get into a philosophical discussion about surpluses try someone else.

 

The salient fact, a state, regardless of size does not issue it's currency nor control the fed. Now, administrations do not control the fed, but they DO appoint Fed chairpersons, they to affect fiscal policy which affect the economy whereby, in turn, the Fed chairman responds by adjusting interest rates. No state can do that. .

you CANNOT judge national governance at the state level, period.
You have to judge the nation, as a whole, at the national level.

On that level, the overall stats favor dems. Even the stock market favors dems.
And, of all things, you'd think repubs would beat dems on that one, but it just isn't true.

 

I am not towing a party line and the same goes for repubs. Government interference in our lives beyond minimal levels does not benefit society as they claim. That is the promise, but once they get their proboscis into tax money, they grow fat and society is worse off. Given the sample size and the levels of taxation and Dem control, results from your party's petri dish are scientifically accurate.

 

What you want is the neoliberal view, government hands off, less regulation, less government everything, lower taxes on rich people, etc. That has been happening since reagan. We've had the biggest doses of neoliberalism since Reagan onward. The neoliberal era actually started with Nixon & Ford, took a small set back with Carter, but a step forward when Carter appointed Paul Volker to the Fed Chair, and neoliberalism took off with Reagan. Even with Clinton with the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which lifted restrictions on derivatives and banks which has been said to be the biggest contributor to the crash of 2008. Obama tried to contain it, but couldn't, because of opposition from the republican senate, though he did manage to the get the ACA passed.

We have been worse off. Wage stagnation has the been the result of neoliberal policies since Nixon, reagan, since the reduction of taxes (on corporations and the rich ) and the reduction of regulations on wages. Just look at the charts, and you can see for yourself. Neoliberalism has permeated both parties, but the right more than the left, though of all the dems, Clinton was the most neoliberal, in my view.

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Now, I am all for containing/overhauling/reducing, etc., regulation where it is smart. For example, regulation in the construction industry in CA is a nightmare, so it needs cleaning up there, and the same goes for pharmacies, as I've talked to construction people and pharmacy owners. I mean, I understand where regulations need a lot of overhauling and things have gotten out of hand, but to approach it from a philosophical point of view rather than a pragmatic view is the wrong approach, in my view.

Anyway, 'nuff said.