Why a Huge Budget Deficit Might Be Good News for California
California is facing a projected deficit of $68 billion, a larger amount than the entire annual budget of the state of Florida.

As someone who watches the governor and Legislature fairly closely, I find it rare to see good news coming out of the Capitol. The state's leaders spend money wildly on every imaginable progressive priority, concoct myriad tax and fee increases, lavish handouts on public-employee unions, and rail against the "greed" of private companies.
But, finally, we're seeing an encouraging development. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the state is facing a $68 billion budget deficit, which is 50 percent larger than the general fund budget of Florida. In normal states, red ink isn't something to cheer about. In California, however, a money shortage is the only thing that imposes any fiscal limits.
Stein's Law says, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." Named after the late economist Herb Stein, its point is government is not going to stop doing whatever it does until external factors force it to do so. Obviously, California officials aren't going to restrain their spending addiction on their own. States must (on paper, anyway) balance their budgets, so a deficit is the external constraint we need.
We're a long way from a Day of Reckoning—the long-predicted but never-arriving time when officials, confronted by economic reality, change their ways. Never underestimate the ability of politicians to delay hard decisions by embracing accounting gimmicks that foist the problem on future lawmakers. We heard about that day during the pension crisis of 2012, and yet pension systems are in worse shape than ever and no one even mentions pension reform in the Capitol.
Some of us thought that last year's $31.5 billion deficit would put the kibosh on the spending train (and maybe even on the $100 billion actual bullet train boondoggle), but we were wrong. As columnist Dan Walters noted, Newsom "clawed back" some money that hadn't been spent, but was warned by the Legislature's budget analyst that this year's budget would be as much as $10 billion short. Newsom also shifted general fund spending to special funds to paper over the problem.
Then the governor announced his grand achievement in his usual way. "In partnership with the Legislature, we have made deep investments in California and its future—transformative efforts that will benefit generations of Californians, and that this budget will continue to guide as we navigate near-term ups and downs in revenue," Newsom declared after "closing" the deficit, before going on his merry way of lecturing conservative states about their governmental failures.
Now he faces the largest challenge of his political career thanks largely to downturns in the state's tech economy. As the LAO put it: "investment in California startups and technology companies is especially sensitive to financial conditions and, as a result, has dropped significantly. For example, the number of California companies that went public (sold stock to public investors for the first time) in 2022 and 2023 is down over 80 percent from 2021."
Expect the governor and lawmakers to play the victim, blaming the situation on national economic conditions (higher interest rates, for instance) that are out of their control. Don't buy it. Consider that 18 months ago, California enjoyed a remarkable and unparalleled budget surplus of $97.5 billion. Lawmakers had the cushion to revamp our steeply progressive tax system, which makes it always dependent on boom-and-bust cycles.
With that much spare cash, Sacramento pols could have placed the state on solid fiscal ground for many years. Even with our inexcusably high-cost structure, they could have fixed our water infrastructure, bolstered our transportation systems, and reformed the chronically underperforming public schools. They did in fact send a few bucks back to taxpayers and put more money aside in the rainy day fund, but mostly ramped up social spending.
When one considers the shoddy level of state services, it's easy to wonder where all this money goes. Here's one place, according to a state fact sheet: "The California Climate Commitment will bring California's multi-year climate investment to $53.9 billion—more than what most other countries are spending—to lead the world in fighting climate change, designed to involve and benefit all Californians." Despite that, state carbon emissions actually are increasing.
Perhaps it's my hobby horse, but California officials measure success by how much they spend—not by the effectiveness of their spending. Perhaps now California might have to prioritize programs that are working and defund those that aren't. Just a thought. Former Gov. Jerry Brown also liked to spend, but he always warned that a recession is around the corner. He eliminated redevelopment agencies when he was faced with a big deficit, which was the best reform in decades.
Brown also raised taxes. And that's the main danger now. California already is around the top on the tax-taking front. We are heading toward perilous times, but at least the deficit will impose some restraint on a government that can't restrain itself. That's good news.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Perhaps Biden can impose another round of sanctions on Russia to make them feelz better.
Just charge an exit tax..it will stimulate demand (to leave) and raise a ton of revenue in the short term. Long term is not a concern of any politician.
And perhaps making CA as a trans surgery for children destination would be a revenue generator. Millions of young kids with trans munchausen by proxy (woke moms) will be sterilized with much adulation by the LA Times, NYT, and Reason. Hell these families are probably upper middle class or wealthy and can afford these destination sexual mutilation right?
"We are heading toward perilous times, but at least the deficit will impose some restraint on a government that can't restrain itself."
I see that there are still a lot of drugs in California.
It takes a lot of drugs to run a state like that. Pipe dreams and all that.
Hopium, for the most part.
Imported from Egypt, along da Nile?
No, the Hopium comes from Halfghanistan.
So tell me how CA’s fiscal challenges are forcing them to reconsider their “reparations” plan:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/17/black-reparations-price-tag-california-00110137
I’m waiting
*crickets*
That's easy to fix. The most fun reparations plan, at least for self-hating whites, will require the oppressor class to report for slave shifts every month at the homes of black victims.
Do you really think those people are going to venture out of their enclaves? No, they have the virtue, while wonks like you and me will do the work.
Even with our inexcusably high-cost structure, they could have fixed our water infrastructure, bolstered our transportation systems, and reformed the chronically underperforming public schools.
I mean these are all standard democrat complaints and wants. Spend more to fix more, never looking at the causes of the problems. Public schools especially in California don't need more spending, yet greenhut thinks spending should have gone to increase spending there instead of other programs.
I dony see any actual calls to stop uneeded spending in this article, just to redirect it to his care abouts.
Perhaps it's my hobby horse, but California officials measure success by how much they spend—not by the effectiveness of their spending. Perhaps now California might have to prioritize programs that are working and defund those that aren't. Just a thought.
Only JesseAz could read that as a call to continue unneeded spending while redirecting money to his care abouts.
No wonder he doesn't think anyone should be able to be sued for defamation. All he does is lie about people.
If you think California politicians are going to reform their government, you’re even more retarded than I thought.
Not to rain on your glass-half-full-parade, but isn't this a bit like celebrating that you don't have to have chemo anymore because your cancer isn't responding?
I wad looking for a good analogy. This is excellent.
Yes it is
Well said.
It’s more like “you don’t have to have chemo anymore because the cancer is about to kill you.” Greenhut rails against increased spending and then celebrates when the spending hits max.
I dony see any actual calls to stop uneeded spending in this article, just to redirect it to his care abouts.
I think we're well past the point of polite calls for "Fuck you, cut spending." and more at the point where people just need to be hit in the head with large, wooden mallets.
Would converting all taxes into a head tax qualify as a mallet?
California will demand and get federal money from Biden, Democrats, and RINOs.
This guy gets it.
If the feds DONT bail out california it will be called racism, especially if an R is president at the time.
Not if he lives outside Cali.
Yes, that's where the surplus 18 months ago came from, the stupid Covid cash grab. The CARES ACT...
BINGO..... Why every socialist agenda goes 'national'.
which is another reason to end the Fed once and for all. Deficit spending ends..and all this nonsense since the 1960's comes to rapid end. Deporting keynsian economists back to eastern europe or Vienna would help as well.
Seems like time for Newsom to join other successful Californians and leave the state for "better" shores
It seems he is checking out a certain property in DC - - - - - - - -
Coming your way, on a national scale.
The cost of illegal immigration in California totals $21.76 billion.
Should California be rolling in the dough?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/cost-of-illegal-immigration-by-state
And California says they aren't spending enough on them.
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/04/california-undocumented-immigrants/
Just last year.
Note the above estimates are from July before the surge that occurred in the 2nd half of the year. FAIR has the estimate at 30B+.
The place must be flooded with delicious food trucks!
Yeah. But all college hipster social science majors doing fusion foods.
Just think, once CA collapses, then Reason will be able to pretend that *this time* all the fleeing immigrants will have learned their lessons about socialism... because *real* "diversity" has never been tried before!
Actually, that much is true.
Just think, with a state budget of $300 billion, and a million food trucks, each one has to pay only $300,000 in taxes to fund the entire system.
"That taco is how much?"
To be fair, Reason, to the best of my knowledge, isn't pressing the "cost-free" narrative any more. They just push the "eventually, based on prior immigration data, once integrated, they'll add to the economy". Which is true... when immigration is kept to certain manageable levels, and before this country explicitly paid immigrants to come here with free housing, welfare, healthcare etc.
The only reason immigrants are not "cost free" is because government insists on bribing them to stay here. The only legitimate social cost for visitors is humanitarian emergency medical care, and even that should only be a temporary cost until they can pay it back. If government allowed anyone who can pass a simple criminal background check as they enter to legally enter and work at any job they find acceptable while here; and required them to support themselves while refusing to allow them ANY "social welfare" benefits; and perhaps require them to post a bond to cover the costs of sending them back home if they FAIL to support themselves while visiting, then the only other cost would be criminal prosecution and punishment in the rare case that they commit a crime here. Of course that assumes that only the people who intend to support themselves and their families would come here and that the social cost of massive illegal immigration currently in force would plummet to near zero. What do you disagree with about that assessment?
This is false. Immigrants utilize welfare at higher rates.
https://cis.org/Camarota/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-NativeBorn-Households
The bottom 50% of society have negative effective tax rates. And many of the illegals will stay in that grouping.
That doesn't actually counter his because government insists on bribing them to stay here point.
Get back to us after CA authorizes unemployment for illegals:
https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2022/04/california-undocumented-immigrants/
If government allowed anyone who can pass a simple criminal background check
Define simple.
Just one question:
Are you a Trump supporter?
We all know that you’re pro immigration, MW, but I believe that your terms are considered “draconian” in progressive and liberal circles.
Any wonder then, that many of us just say, “ok, let’s forget the whole thing”?
Oh, I know. Easier to virtue signal about “xenophobia” and racism than it is to admit that some rules and restrictions need to be applied.
Of they just ignore costs are they actually not pushing it? I never see them address the costs. Tacit admissions while advocating for more isnt exactly admitting to the problem.
They just push the “eventually, based on prior immigration data, once integrated, they’ll add to the economy”.
And to address this point the only recent analysis I've seen even attempted is they are net payers after 15 to 20 years with no recognition of the total costs to get to that point. No use of present value of money. It is meant to excuse the current costs for maybe a small benefit less than the costs of "investment" now.
Would you invest 1M in a company to get 10k in 15 years?
Sure, as long as the $1M is your money and the $10K is mine. And that seems to be the problem.
California's only hope is to cut taxes and regulations. They have the third worst business environment behind Hawaii and New York. Unfortunately, the California culture is so utterly depraved that they will almost certainly increase taxes and regulations.
Should California be rolling in the dough?
California is rolling in the masa.
Where is the bullet train money going? Have they built one inch of rail lately?
Everyone involved in that boondoggle needs to be in jail.
TL;DR: Because it is (D) doing it, eh, Reason?
Too stupid;did read.
Fuck off and die.
So, what does Newsom's dick taste like?
Piss poor effort, even for a 50 center.
Perhaps it's my hobby horse, but California officials measure success by how much they spend—not by the effectiveness of their spending.
Democrats measure success by more than just how much money they spend. They also consider getting more people on welfare a success. For some reason Democrats never advertise how many people they helped get off welfare.
Obama bragged about 6M on SSI disability.
"Gov. Gavin Newsom’s standing among California voters has hit an all-time low, with 49% disapproving of his performance as governor, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times."
And yet, according to this same poll, "Newsom still enjoys 66% approval from voters in his own party..."
California had an opportunity to rid themselves of this hairdo a couple of years ago, and overwhelmingly voted to keep him on. And even now they cannot seem to connect the dots of fiscal disaster and piss poor policy.
Perhaps that is because they simply do not see any downside to an ongoing governmental gravy train; the problem being with all those greedy corporations and fat cats.
If the greatest threat to democracy is an uneducated citizenry, perhaps there is a reason that California schools are doing such a poor job. Better to focus on things like privilege and equity than to provide any basis for understanding things like civics and economics.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
In normal states, red ink isn't something to cheer about. In California, however, a money shortage is the only thing that imposes any fiscal limits.
Illinois says, hold my beer. We're supposed to have a balanced budget, but even running a deficit doesn't impose fiscal limits on these assholes.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/pritzker-claims-1-7b-surplus-while-his-budget-shows-1-5b-deficit/
For the record, that's over 20 years of red ink.
According to the article California has a $48B deficit. You're talking small potatoes by comparison.
1. California has been running surpluses more often than Illinois in the same time period.
2. Size of state matters. That $48 billion is spread over almost 40 million people ($120 per capita). Illinois's $1.53 billion is spread over only 13 million people ($117.70 per capita), but given the longer and deeper running Illinois deficits, Illinois has been far worse in the more recent past. It's been as much as $8 billion in 2017 ($615.38 per capita).
3. Illinois is one of 45 states requiring a balanced budget, something they've lacked since 2002. California does too, but see point #1 above.
Point is, it may be smaller now, but over time, it builds up quickly.
I sometimes forget that California has a larger economy than most countries.
It's homeless population alone is larger than some European nations.
To be fair, there are European nations that are smaller than every county in New Mexico except Los Alamos County. Well, "nation". Andorra.
And more population land area than many countries.
You're off by a decimal on CA, though. That's $1200/resident, which is an assload. Tack that onto the $5800/resident that the feds tacked onto the deficit and it looks like government spending is a touch wasteful. Between federal and state deficit for a single year, a family of 5 could pay a year of tuition, pay a mortgage, or do all kinds of more useful shit.
Particularly since a bunch of them aren't paying that much in taxes.
Yes, but Illinois is a sh*thole; California is actually attractive as a state (the people and politics not so much).
Never underestimate the ability of politicians to delay hard decisions by embracing accounting gimmicks that foist the problem on future lawmakers.
Didn't Reason embrace the accounting gimmicks that were used to show that California had "balanced its budget" during the last Jerry Brown governorship?
Polyanna had NOTHING on Steven! No, California government will not react to the looming deficit by changing its spending behavior or it's "head in the sand" cluelessness even if external factors "force" them to. But I hope your optimism in the face of the disaster that never seems to actually arrive keeps you warm this winter.
Clearly the only solution is for California to tax everything every citizen makes or owns at 125%.
Perhaps now California might have to prioritize programs that are working and defund those that aren't.
So... this is why the budget deficit is a "good thing"? Because we actually believe the "this time" magical thinking?
Progressives come in two economic flavors.
The first set are delusional naive. They are surprised that things cost money, and that budgets, for both public and private enterprises, need to be balanced. They are a subset of useful idiots.
The second set are confrontational. They understand economic fundamentals well enough, but are determined not to be bound by numbers. If anything, they deliberately concoct and implement financially irrational schemes, and dare us to stop them.
This is a very interesting perspective that I had not considered. perhaps "being broke" is what California politicians need.
Hey, Argentina elected a CATO approved libertarian once their inflation went off the rails. Maybe Biden's inflation will have a silver lining after all.
Print more CA-fiat $.... Oh wait; That's what has already been done and now we're all paying for CA's debt on the price-tag.
CA never had a surplus. You don't have a surplus if your debt and future spending exceeds whatever money you have on hand.
Eric Adams actually cut spending in response to the migrant crisis in his city, so miracles can happen. States can't print money, after all. But CA is populated by uninformed takers who could not POSSIBLY afford to live in CA if the government didn't give them free stuff. They won't tolerate "austerity" and Sacramento has no incentive to give up power by deciding not to be yes men.
Businesses that face the deficit problems currently destroying California go bankrupt and screw their creditors. There is nothing good about this. Peoples' lives are destroyed.
It is far worse when a state goes bankrupt. CA has lawyers who control men with guns that will be called to action. There will be shakedowns (want to drive your car? - pay the $10,000 registration and Climate Change fee) and massive property seizures (too bad that your farm can't pay your taxes because we cut off your water, move out by Friday).
The middle class will be wiped out and when there are no more goods to loot, the state will be bailed out by the Feds, and the Feds will loot other states to assure those 55 electoral votes go to the right candidate before the population drop knocks the vote total down to 45.
It may be good news for California taxpayers, who might finally see some restraint in state spending. But it will be bad news for taxpayers in the other 49 states, when the federal bailout is needed and California (or at least it's public employee pension plan) is "too big to fail."
Precisely why the State's were never allowed to 'coin' their own money so I'm not sure where the federal gets off 'coining' it for them.
Gavin can count on his good buddy Joe Biden to bail him out with lots more federal funding. After all, what's another $100 billion when you're already running a $2+ trillion dollar federal deficit?
Plus, Elon Musk moved to Texas. Lose a billionaire or two and it's bound to impact your income tax revenues.