(We’re having some problems with our database. But this needed to be seen ASAP. I hope we can get it back up to speed soon, but if you have any questions, email me. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

In 1991, California faced a severe budget shortfall.  The LAO’s documentation of how it was addressed can be found in its “State Spending Plan for 1991-92” [pdf], a 54-page document.  But to spare you the suspense (and me the time I don’t have to read the whole thing), the entire story is neatly summarized in this chart:

What?!?!?  Almost three times as much in increased revenues compared to cost cuts???  Signed by Pete Wilson?  And herr Gropenator is a post-partisan?

Not so much.

An excerpt from the top of the LAO’s document can be found on the flip

The State’s Budget Funding Gap

The 1991-92 Governor’s Budget, released in January of 1991, projected that the state faced an 18-month General Fund budget funding gap of $7.0 billion. As shown in Figure 1(next page), this funding gap represented the amount of savings, increased revenues, and other resources needed to offset:

• A projected 1990-91 fiscal year deficit of $1.9 billion.
  

• The projected 1991-92 operating shortfall of $3.7 billion which is the difference between 1991-92 “workload budget” expenditures and available revenues.
  

• The funding requirements for rebuilding the state’s reserve fund of $1.4 billion.

The workload budget expenditure level essentially represents the level of expenditures needed to pay for the cost of currently authorized services, adjusted for changes in caseload, enrollment, and population. In addition, adjustments are made for certain price and statutory cost-of-living changes, legislation, and certain other factors, pursuant to Ch 1209/90 (AB 756, Isenberg). On this basis, 1991-92 state General Fund expenditures were projected to increase by more than 10 percent over 1990-91 levels, while available revenues were projected to increase by only 4 percent.

Evolution of the Budget Funding Gap

Figure 1(next page) also shows how the administration’s estimates of the budget funding gap changed after the 1991-92 Governor’s Budget was introduced. In late March, the Governor announced that the gap had increased from $7.0 billion to $12.6 billion, reflecting substantial revisions to the administration’s estimates of revenues and expenditures. Specifically, the failure of the state’s economy to perform at the level anticipated in January caused the administration to revise its estimates  of revenue downwards by $4.5 billion during the 1990-91 and 1991-92 fiscal years combined. In addition, increasing caseloads and other factors caused the administration to increase its estimate of expenditures by $1.1 billion.

The budget funding gap was increased further at the time of the May Revision. Noting the continued weakness in the state’s economy, the administration announced that the budget funding gap had grown from $12.6 billion to $14.3 billion. This change was attributable entirely to a

further $1.7 billion reduction in the administration’s estimates of revenue for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 fiscal years. Thus, in crafting a state budget for 1991-92, the Legislature and the administration faced a budget funding gap equivalent to one-third of the state’s General Fund workload budget.

Summary of Actions Taken to Close The Gap

Tale 1 identifies the major legislative actions taken to close the state’s budget funding gap, together with the administration’s estimates of the fiscal effect of these actions. As shown in the table, these actions provide:

• $9.1 billion in increased resources, primarily from higher state and local taxes, fund transfers, and accounting changes.
  

• $3.4 billion in expenditure reductions.
  

• $1.6 billion in cost shifts, including retirement contribution savings.

Together, these actions constitute $14.1 billion of the budget solution. The remaining $200 million needed to fully close the $14.3 billion gap was accomplished by lowering the funding target for the state’s reserve fund from $1.4 billion to $1.2 billion. Each of the major elements of the budget agreement are more fully described in Chapter IV of this report.

Just three words in comment: Pete fricken Wilson.

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee put out a simple call for a petition last week, demanding access for our patients to CheneyCare, the guaranteed, non-profit, quality healthcare available to Dick Cheney.  (Sign up if you haven’t already.)

What we didn’t expect was the hundreds of people who would write in with their stories of abuse at the hands of the insurance corporations.  This is a heart-breaking window into the pain and heartache that insurers inflict on America.  And now ABX11 would require everyone to purchase insurance products from these same corporations who are already ripping people off?  That’s nuts.

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize for GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

What’s happening out there in the wide wide world of guaranteed healthcare reform…

The California Nurses Association is working to end ABX1 1, the “fake” healthcare reform proposal floating around Sacramento.  That bill was crafted by insurers and features an “individual mandate’–wonk talk for a law forcing people to purchase expensive insurance products no matter their cost or quality. Read all about it here.

On the national level, Barack Obama is launching an ad to spread the word about his healthcare plan.  His plan’s not perfect-he avoids universal, single-payer coverage-but he pledges to oppose the individual mandate scam that’s being pushed by Romney, Schwarzenegger, Clinton, et al.  That’s a good first step.  (For the record, CNA/NNOC has made no endorsement.)

Elswhere, Ian Welsh looks at the recent article finding that 100,000 Americans die each year due to our deficient healthcare system.  That’s 100,000 victims of the health insurance industry.  He writes:

So choose whether you support single payer health care. But remember that in making that choice you are making a profound statement about what you consider important – free market ideology or saving lives and pain – and that single payor healthcare has been proven to actually be cheaper than the current system. Immoral and impractical – all in one.

Finally, the Rutland Herald in Vermont thinks single-payer “may be upon us sooner than we think” and  The Time Goes By blog wants to sign up for CheneyCare.