Only after doing things such as threatening to cut 300 million from education unless folks raised taxes (retroactively as well).
If your method of balancing the budget is always asking for more money, you haven't really balanced the budget.
What are you going to do in a few years when those tax hikes expire, and you suddenly lose the same amount of revenue?
I look forward to a few years when we begin to hear the claim in that we need to make the temporary hikes permanent, because we are running out of money again.
(This is, btw, fairly similar as to how the federal income tax was created. It was originally temporary)
As for the surplus claims: Of course the guy who supported the ballot initiative is going to say it's going to run a surplus.
However, even the ballot initiative booklet mentioned the surplus claims are possibly false, as the kind of revenue they are depending on is very transient and hard to predict.
As for the surplus claims: Of course the guy who supported the ballot initiative is going to say it's going to run a surplus.
The independent Legislative Analyst's Office, which had previously said Brown's budget would have had a $1.9 billion shortfall in November, now says that it is roughly in balance due to changes in income tax:
If your method of balancing the budget is always asking for more money, you haven't really balanced the budget.
How is increasing revenues not a valid way of balancing a budget? And always asking for more money? Reagan raised the top income tax bracket in California from 7% to 10%. It now stands at 10.3%.
What are you going to do in a few years when those tax hikes expire, and you suddenly lose the same amount of revenue? I look forward to a few years when we begin to hear the claim in that we need to make the temporary hikes permanent, because we are running out of money again.
Considering most of the budget deficit is mostly due to California's substantial social safety net being engaged by the Great Recession, as long as the economy continues to improve, California will probably get by fine with the increased revenues of more people working and lessened burden of people applying for medicaid and unemployment insurance.
I have no knowledge of the LAO, but the federal CBO (which I believe has a similar function, and is supposedly similarly independent) continuously makes projections that are worthless.
One of the reasons for this is that their mandate requires them to assume the current taxation regime; which means that whenever you do tax cuts (e.g. Bush), you do them "temporarily", which means that CBO estimates will necessarily assume they expire. Then you extend them, and -- tada, CBO is never right regardless of how well they do their work.
Politicians hacking the rules they set themselves. If it wasn't sad, I'd say it was entertaining.
Unfortunately, my local campaign for renaming "leaders" to "rulers" has about as much success as RMS' re-acronyming DRM to "digital restriction management". Actually, even less than that.
