A Comparison of Three Government Budgets
By Randall Holcombe • Thursday May 3, 2012 2:26 PM PDT • 6 Comments
One effect of the ongoing recession is that it reduces tax revenues. That’s one reason the federal deficit is as large as it is. But not all governments have responded the way the US government has.
I live in Florida, where total state appropriations (that is, state government expenditures) peaked in 2006, prior to the recession, at $73.9 billion. Because of declining revenues, expenditures fell to $66.2 billion in 2008, and in 2012 have come back to $70.0 billion, which is 5.3% less than their peak six years ago. The fiscally conservative Florida legislature has held the line on taxes, and state government spending has fallen.
In California, 2006 state expenditures were $130.0 billion, and and in 2012 are $137.3 billion, a 5.6% increase. Not much of an increase over six years, but it looks like more when compared to Florida’s expenditure reduction.
Meanwhile, federal government expenditures in 2006 were $2,655.1 billion, and rose to $3,795.6 billion in 2012, for an increase of 43%. I conjecture that few Americans would argue the federal government is providing 43% more value to them now than it was in 2006.
If the federal government had kept its spending increase to the same level as California’s state government from 2006-12, federal expenditures would be $2,803.8 billion, or 26.2% lower than they are today.
If the federal government had reduced its expenditures as much as Florida did, federal expenditures would be $2,514.4 billion, or 33.8% lower than they are today.
The Floridians I hear complaining about government budget cuts are government employees, the people who get paid by government. I never hear ordinary Floridians in the private sector complaining about reduced government services. I suspect you’d have few complaints if the federal government budget were cut 33.8% today, except for the people who are recipients of taxpayer dollars.
One final thought: 2012 federal tax revenues are $2,468.6 billion, so if the federal budget actually were cut by 33.8%, we’d still have a $48.8 billion budget deficit.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, California, Politics, Taxation, The State 
Is it too much too ask that our legistors learn to make a difficult vote and live within our means?
Jim Launer | May 3, 2012 | Reply
And the outrageous part is, our deficit actually COULD have been cut if not for Congressmen like my RINO Larry Bucshon. The House passed a budget with cuts, including the defunding of Obamacare, the Democrat NPR and Planned Parenthood. All they had to do at that point was nothing at all. The Senate had no choice but to pass it, because they don’t have another source of budgets.
But my RINO Bucshon lost his nerve as quick as Obama suggested that the Democrat voter base would not like it, and began running around claiming that it was all the Republicans’ fault, and that the would make whatever concessions were necessary to get the Democrats to accept it, but first they would extract some concessions.
The Democrats got everything they wanted, and again at the debt ceiling increase.
So its not just the fault of the Democrats. Its our fault for electing RINOs like Bucshon. And if we re-elect him the obvious result will again be our fault.
Oral Deckard | May 3, 2012 | Reply
Comparing a national budget to a state budget is comparing apples to oranges. Can a state go start wars???
There’s our problem, more than anything else.
Ashish | May 4, 2012 | Reply
Nobody ( almost) knows that the Federals have spent $ 200 TRILLION on their deep underground bunkers and whole cities since 1985 when they figured what planet X, or Nibiru, or whatever new code name NASA has come up with now, will do to Planet Earth. It is all a secret, hidey holes for the Zionists, and high Federal bureaucrats, under ” Continuity of Government” hidden secret program. All the other fools will stay topside and watch the world burn.
Craig Pemberton | May 9, 2012 | Reply