I need clarification on State Budgets

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
That's what rainy day funds are for.

I don't follow.

reserves carried over from previous budgets. I don't understand the call for yearly balanced budget. 5 year cycle makes a lot more sense when you are talking about government. Otherwise you end up with those stupid year end spending spree.

Balanced might not be the right word. Each year's budget should be required to be non-negative. Any surplus would then be rolled into the next years budget, and so forth forward. It is stupid to run a negative budget in the hope that next year we will get more money from taxes.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
So back on topic... in my state they are predicted to pass a budget that will create a 6-8 billion deficit after 2009. Why would they pass a budget knowing it would create a deficit. Why don't they just cut programs?

WHAT!? and give up their power? Don't be silly.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Some state constitutions specifically do not allow passing a deficit budget. Michigan is one for example that I know of.

It's a gesture to the taxpayer, nothing more.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Some state constitutions specifically do not allow passing a deficit budget. Michigan is one for example that I know of.

It's a gesture to the taxpayer, nothing more.

Gesture my ass. In my state they are cutting programs and expenditures to meet that "gesture" as well they should.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
That's what rainy day funds are for.

I don't follow.

reserves carried over from previous budgets. I don't understand the call for yearly balanced budget. 5 year cycle makes a lot more sense when you are talking about government. Otherwise you end up with those stupid year end spending spree.

Balanced might not be the right word. Each year's budget should be required to be non-negative. Any surplus would then be rolled into the next years budget, and so forth forward. It is stupid to run a negative budget in the hope that next year we will get more money from taxes.

Balanced is the right word in government circle. As long as you are spending less than what you take in in taxes (including previous reserves), you are maintaining a balanced budget.

Government expenditure is a lot more complicated than personal finance.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: Slick5150
Some state constitutions specifically do not allow passing a deficit budget. Michigan is one for example that I know of.

It's a gesture to the taxpayer, nothing more.

Gesture my ass. In my state they are cutting programs and expenditures to meet that "gesture" as well they should.

Perhaps I should have explained more. What I mean is, it sounds nice to maintain a balanced budget and government should strive for it, but doing it by force is the wrong way to go. If you look at your future and do not see any positive direction in your revenue, then of course you have to cut programs.

What I am against is knee jerk budget cuts. You have to evaluate the programs on not just return on investment but impact on cancellation and cost to restart program in the future. Long term thinking is what I am pushing for.

 

[sdifox]

op, what is CT's population and what was the budget that was passed? How much was last year's?

 

[dbk]

read the state's cafr - it'll explain everything

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: sdifox
op, what is CT's population and what was the budget that was passed? How much was last year's?

3.4 million ppl

budget proposal

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell...ew.asp?a=1317&Q=433326

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox
op, what is CT's population and what was the budget that was passed? How much was last year's?

3.4 million ppl

budget proposal

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell...ew.asp?a=1317&Q=433326

dude you can't read...

08-09 is a deficit of 987M, 09-10 surplus of 2.3M and 2010-11 surplus of 1.5M

wait... I am reading past first page now...will update when I get further


looks like your government is doing its best. Although I don't like the plan they are going with, there is really no need to raid the nest egg so completely. Should really stretch it out a little more in terms of how long to get back to balanced budget. But at least it is a 3 year plan.

For a bit of contrast in 07-08 there were about 1.9M elementary and secondary students in Ontario, the Education budget was about C18B

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox
op, what is CT's population and what was the budget that was passed? How much was last year's?

3.4 million ppl

budget proposal

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell...ew.asp?a=1317&Q=433326

dude you can't read...

08-09 is a deficit of 987M, 09-10 surplus of 2.3M and 2010-11 surplus of 1.5M

wait... I am reading past first page now...will update when I get further


looks like your government is doing its best. Although I don't like the plan they are going with, there is really no need to raid the nest egg so completely. Should really stretch it out a little more in terms of how long to get back to balanced budget. But at least it is a 3 year plan.

For a bit of contrast in 07-08 there were about 1.9M elementary and secondary students in Ontario, the Education budget was about C18B

I didn't read the budget I heard on the radio about the billion dollar deficit.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox
op, what is CT's population and what was the budget that was passed? How much was last year's?

3.4 million ppl

budget proposal

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell...ew.asp?a=1317&Q=433326

dude you can't read...

08-09 is a deficit of 987M, 09-10 surplus of 2.3M and 2010-11 surplus of 1.5M

wait... I am reading past first page now...will update when I get further


looks like your government is doing its best. Although I don't like the plan they are going with, there is really no need to raid the nest egg so completely. Should really stretch it out a little more in terms of how long to get back to balanced budget. But at least it is a 3 year plan.

For a bit of contrast in 07-08 there were about 1.9M elementary and secondary students in Ontario, the Education budget was about C18B

I didn't read the budget I heard on the radio about the billion dollar deficit.

Ah the worst kind, sound bite critics

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
That's what rainy day funds are for.

I don't follow.

reserves carried over from previous budgets. I don't understand the call for yearly balanced budget. 5 year cycle makes a lot more sense when you are talking about government. Otherwise you end up with those stupid year end spending spree.

Montana has a two year cycle (the legislature meets for 90 days every other year) and it is a real pita. They do not appear to be anywhere close to figuring out the budget and are halfway through the session as the revenue projections keep dropping. There are definite downsides.

financial cycle, not governance. wtf, they meet every other year???

It makes a lot of sense. The government of the state is very hands off and does not do much other than pass a budget. They are also a lot more open that in other states. Heck, none of the congressmen have their own staff, they all share the same pool of staff members. The only people that are professional politicians are the elected executives (SOS, Gov, etc). The rest are ranchers, lawyers, etc the rest of the year. It works out pretty well except in this case.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

It makes a lot of sense. The government of the state is very hands off and does not do much other than pass a budget. They are also a lot more open that in other states. Heck, none of the congressmen have their own staff, they all share the same pool of staff members. The only people that are professional politicians are the elected executives (SOS, Gov, etc). The rest are ranchers, lawyers, etc the rest of the year. It works out pretty well except in this case.

how big is the bureaucracy?

ps how does one become a congressman in Montana? 90day of work in 2 years...

 

[flashbacck]

Politicians are the worst when it comes to fiscal responsibility. They don't give a crap because states can borrow a ton, and by the time it becomes an issue (like now) they're out of office and it's someone else's problem.

 

[IGBT]

..base line budgeting. enough is never enough.