Use either the form or links on the side to filter the list of publications. Browse other LAO products using the links at the bottom of the sidebar.
31 Publications Found
Overview of the May Revision Clear Filters
May 15, 2007 - The administration released its May Revision yesterday, identifying over $2 billion in new budget solutions to address a comparable level of increased budgetary problem. In this document, we provide our initial assessment of the problem definition and the viability of the administration’s proposed solutions.
May 15, 2006 - The state’s strong revenue performance-a $7.5 billion increase since January-presents an extraordinary opportunity for the Legislature. Key decisions are: (1) how much of the increase should be provided to K-14 education, (2) should increased school funding be allocated to new initiatives or to strengthen existing programs and pay off debts, and (3) which state debt should be prepaid? We urge the Legislature to focus on regaining the state’s fiscal balance, particularly in light of the risks and uncertainties facing the state.
May 16, 2005 - The May Revision proposes to use about $4 billion in new funds generated from an improved revenue outlook to reduce budgetary debt and restore the Proposition 42 transfer to transportation. We believe the administration’s general approach of using the resources for debt reduction and one-time purposes is sensible in light of the state’s structural budget shortfall. We strongly urge the Legislature to aim at ongoing solutions which are of the same magnitude as the administration’s proposal.
May 17, 2004 - The state's near-term fiscal picture has improved significantly as a result of an improved revenue outlook and the one-time receipt of funds. Despite this improvement, the state's long-term fiscal outlook relative to the January budget plan has worsened. The May Revision plan misses an opportunity to make further progress toward eliminating the state's long-term structural imbalance.
May 19, 2003 - The May Revision adopts a multiyear approach to addressing the state's massive budget problem, relying more on borrowing and less on near-term spending reductions than the January proposal. Adoption of the plan would likely result in a precariously balanced 2003-04 budget, but would leave the state with a still-formidable structural imbalance between ongoing revenues and expenditures in the future. Primarily because of this imbalance, we believe that if the Governor's multiyear approach is adopted, it should include additional ongoing solutions beyond those proposed in the May Revision.
May 16, 2002 - The Governor's May Revision addresses an enormous increase in the state's budget shortfall through a variety of spending reductions, tax increases, fund transfers, and additional borrowing. Overall, it is a credible plan. At the same time, the proposal contains some risks and even with its adoption, the state would face additional shortfalls in the future.
May 16, 2001 - The May Revision reports a $5.7 billion deterioration in the state's fiscal condition. This assumes that the General Fund will be reimbursed from revenue bonds for the $7 billion plus it has committed for purchasing electricity. While the Governor's plan would result in a balanced budget in 2001-02, we estimate that the state would likely face a further shortfall of roughly $4 billion in 2002-03.
May 17, 2000 - The May Revision has many positive elements, including significant new funds for infrastructure (primarily one-time) and education. It also preserves the state's future fiscal flexibility by avoiding excessive ongoing commitments. The revision, however, has many proposals which lack specificity and/or delegate too much authority to the administration. It also misses opportunities to provide ongoing funding for infrastructure and state-local finance reform.
May 17, 1999 - The May Revision has many positive features, including major funding for infrastructure, restoration of commitments made last year, and an increase in the state's budgetary reserve. In addressing K-12 education and local government proposals, however, the Legislature may wish to consider more decentralized approaches that recognize differing local needs. In addition, we recommend that the Legislature take the opportunity afforded by the current increase in revenues to begin an ongoing commitment to a pay-as-you-go infrastructure program.
May 19, 1997 - Sharply improving revenues, combined with large caseload-related budget savings, have enabled the administration to propose significant funding increases in the areas of K-12 education, welfare reform, and local government fiscal relief.
May 24, 1996 - Overview of the May Revision 1996-97
May 1, 1995 - Overview of the May Revision 1995-96
May 27, 1994 - This year’s May Revision essentially represents a technical update to the January budget. It does not include any major new proposals. Furthermore, the Administration’s estimates of caseloads and its revenue outlook have changed only slightly since January, so that the May Revision changes are relatively small.
May 1, 1993 - On May 20th, the Administration issued the May Revision of the 1993-94 Governor’s Budget. As originally presented in January, the budget proposal addressed a budget gap that we estimated at $8.6 billion (please see The 1993-94 Budget: Perspectives and Issues, Part I ). Since the introduction of the original budget proposal, this gap has declined slightly. In contrast, the amount of savings that could be achieved from the original budget proposals has decreased by a much larger amount. While the May Revision does propose some additional spending reductions to partially replace these lost savings, the Administration proposes to roll over a deficit of $667 million into 1994-95. A major solution component continues to be a $2.6 billion local property tax shift. We conclude that, as currently structured, this property tax shift proposal is unworkable. It significantly reduces local (especially county) resources without a corresponding change in local responsibilities or a practical way to find replacement revenue in 1993-94.