California recalled a governor in 2003 for a huge operating deficit. This year our current governor faces a deficit that could exceed $40 billion. Yet there is no clamor for his recall. As I have watched this develop, I have been amazed at how little historical perspective there is on the budget. A good way to judge the performance of an executive is to look at the choices that are made in the budget process. So I went back to the 2003 budget for some comparisons.
Here are some interesting numbers. First, in 2003, the State's General Fund was slightly less than $71 billion and the total state budget was just under $100 billion. About $7.5 billion of the budget came from bond funds. The Proposition 98 related expenditures amounted to a bit less than $44 billion. The rest of higher education spent a combined total just north of $10.6 billion. That included $680 million of student aid expenditures. General fund dollars for CSU and the Community Colleges were just under $2.5 billion and UC's General Fund support was just under $3.
In the coming budget year, assuming that the Governor's proposal was adopted, the General Fund would be at $95.5 billion. That is a fairly robust level of growth. The K-12 sector is actually getting a bit more than they did at $39.7 billion, which is $500 million higher than 5 years ago. UC has added about $300 million in funding since then. CSU has added $500 million and the Community Colleges about $300 million. Funding for Student Aid has increased by about $50 million. State funds for higher education have gone up to just over $13 billion, although a good deal of that growth has come in new bond funds.
Corrections is a big part of the change. In 1997 the corrections budget was $2.6 billion - this year it is proposed to be $9.6 billion and that is before any adjustments are made for the legal decisions on inmate health. The figure in 2003 was $5.3 billion. Growth also came for Health and Human Services expenditures which have grown from about 24% of the budget in 2003 to 30% of the proposed budget. So while there has been growth in education, a good deal of the growth has been in corrections and health and human services.
One perplexing issue is the rising costs of prisons. The budget seems to skyrocket in spite of a declining rate of crime in almost every category. According to the Uniform Crime Statistics in 2003 the state had 205,000 violent crimes. In 2007, the last available year for data, we had 191,000. The crime rate for violent crimes per 100,000 population has dropped from just about 600 to just over 520. The murder rate has dropped from 6.7 per 100,000 to 6.2.
I may have some more comments about this but the numbers lead me to believe that we are shifting priorities in curious ways that will not serve the state well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Holy moly that's a big change in corrections. Not surprising, given the propensity toward prison building and too-generous salary increases for CCPOA members, but man, a proposed increase amounting to over 80 percent is just five years? That's irresponsible.
More bad guys in prison and crime going down. The opposite of releasing people from prison and the crime rate going up. Where's the surprise?
The anonymous comment is beside the point. If there were indeed a direct correlation between number of people in prison and crime rate (and there is probably some correlation but it may or may not be direct) then there would be no surprise. But when you dig deeper - the staffing ratios in prisons in California and the compensation levels are different than in other states. In essence we are paying a lot to get some benefit. There needs to be some correlation here. The simple ratio suggested above is not what we should be looking at.
The anonymous comment is beside the point. If there were indeed a direct correlation between number of people in prison and crime rate (and there is probably some correlation but it may or may not be direct) then there would be no surprise. But when you dig deeper - the staffing ratios in prisons in California and the compensation levels are different than in other states. In essence we are paying a lot to get some benefit. There needs to be some correlation here. The simple ratio suggested above is not what we should be looking at.
Post a Comment