>>>>Here we go again. Facing a $15 billion deficit and 50 days past the Constitutionally mandated budget deadline the pieces are falling into place. A little birdy let me in on the following and it's now trickling into the news. The 1 cent "temporary" sales tax increase, into the general fund of course, is essentially a foregone conclusion. There appears to be an income tax increase coming, they're just haggling about what income level will be the floor. There is more borrowing, possibly from lottery money. No significant spending cuts are foreseen.
>>>>
>>>>In addition there appears to be a ballot measure coming to reduce the majority to pass a budget from the currently mandated 2/3rds to 50%.
>>>>
>>>>Just 315 days until the next budget deadline passes.
>>>>Just 899 days until we get a 2nd go-round with governor "Moonbeam"
>>>>
>>>>The times they aren't a changin'!
>>>
>>>What is the latest with the budgeted pay cuts to state employees? A while back I read that the initial budget included draconian pay cuts and job cuts to try to balance the budget.
>>
>>The pay cuts were not a part of the budget they're a temporary measure until a budget is passed. IE Political ploy.
>>
>>Around 10000 part-time state employees were laid off on July 31st and the Governator's plan was to pay the remaining employees the federal minimum wage until the budget is passed and then reimburse the difference. The state controller has refused to implement this and they now have a court date on Sept 12th. Meanwhile state employees are receiving full pay through August.
>>http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/08/18/daily39.html
>>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-budget21-2008aug21,0,5520054.story
>>
>>Back in 1992 the state issued IOUs to state employees when a budget impasse occurred.
>>http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/08/18/daily39.html
>>
>>PS : Notice the increase in state employees. 93k in 1992 and 200k now. Funny, I don't feel like I'm getting 115% more from my state government.
>
>Thanks for the info.
>
>I'm sure part of the increase in headcount corresponds to the increase in population. California certainly didn't have 30 million people in 1992. More people, more work to do. I'm not saying that's the whole explanation but it has to be part of it.

1992 California
Pop - ~30 million
State Workers - 93,000
Budget Deficit - $7 billion

2008 California
Pop - ~37 million
State Employees - 200,000
Deficit - $15 billion

16 year increase
Pop - 23%
State Employees - 115%
Deficit - 114%

Correlation between population and state employees doesn't quite match up, but when you look at the deficit...hmmmm ;)