Republish
How California’s bursting budget morphed into a $45 billion deficit in just two years
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
How California’s bursting budget morphed into a $45 billion deficit in just two years
Share this:
The much-revised 2024-25 state budget that Gov. Gavin Newsom released last week contains hundreds of spending reductions and other actions to close what he says is a $44.9 billion deficit.
Exactly two years earlier, Newsom boasted as the state enjoyed a $97.5 billion budget surplus, thanks to surging revenues from the post-pandemic economic recovery.
“No other state in American history has ever experienced a surplus as large as this,” Newsom said as he unveiled a revised $300 billion 2022-23 budget, which was $14 billion higher than his original proposal.
The budget he signed a month later was even larger, $307 billion, with immense new commitments, including cash payments to poor families and expansions of health care and early childhood education.
So, one must wonder, how did a $97.5 billion surplus morph into a huge deficit and a budget that is pulling back much of the new spending Newsom and the Legislature had so eagerly approved?
The new budget takes a stab at answering the question, basically saying that revenues fell well short of projections.
“Due to the revenue spike from 2019-20 to 2021-22, the budget acts of 2021 and 2022 were based on forecasts that projected substantially greater revenues in the last two fiscal years than occurred,” the budget declares.
Read Next
California’s budget whiplash: From a record-setting surplus to a massive shortfall in one year
However it doesn’t reveal why those erroneous projections were made in the first place.
In 2022, Newsom’s budget staff evidently looked at a spike in tax revenue as the state’s economy recovered from the pandemic, mostly due to massive amounts of federal relief funds, and concluded that the cornucopia would continue indefinitely.
That conclusion – or wishful thinking – led to extrapolating that a $97.5 billion surplus would emerge in 2022-23 and future years. However that number never appears in budget documents and was merely a verbal boast from Newsom.
A chart in the newly revised 2024-25 budget contains the pertinent numbers of the miscalculations.
According to the chart, the 2022-23 budget projected that revenues from the state’s three biggest sources – personal and corporate income taxes and sales taxes – would top $200 billion through 2025-26. In fact, however, they have fallen well short of that level every year since, and are now expected to remain far below for the remainder of Newsom’s governorship.
“The total difference across the four fiscal years is a negative $165.1 billion,” the new budget declares.
That’s an enormous amount of money that Newsom thought the state would be receiving but didn’t – a phantom surplus that fueled unsustainable spending.
The administration was also not alone in assuming in 2022 that the state was on the verge of a big increase in budget revenues. The Legislature’s budget analyst, Gabe Petek, largely confirmed Newsom’s rosy 2022 projections, tabbing revenues from income and sales taxes to hit $214 billion by 2023-24, $36 billion more than the current revenues from those taxes.
Those who crunch numbers in the Department of Finance and Petek’s office are seasoned professionals who, we must assume, honestly believed that California’s treasury would overflow with cash.
Their error apparently reflected models for revenue forecasts that are outdated, particularly when judging how wealthy Californians fare in taxable earnings on investments – a major but very volatile aspect of the revenue stream.
Newsom is proposing a couple of budget process changes to adjust for the volatility in addition to the current practice of setting aside rainy-day reserves. He would not spend spike revenues until they are actually in hand, and write budgets that look ahead to future years.
Those are steps in the right direction. Spending money based on volatile revenue estimates is not only foolish but cruel because – as this year proves – it raises expectations that later turn to pixie dust.
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters