|
Campus: CSU Fullerton -- March 26, 2004
Orange County Residents' Views About State Budget,
Taxes and Spending
Orange County Residents Weigh In On Cutting the State Budget
Budget hearings mark the days of legislators in Sacramento in this season.
The March 2 election is history; Props 57 and 58 were approved by voters;
Proposition 56 lost big. We await the May revision of revenue estimates
(the “May Revise”), which kicks off the period of intense
work on the state budget. Yet we know, or think we know, that an important
part of the exercise this year will involve making cuts to the budget.
In the latest CSUF – OCBC survey, we asked residents of Orange
County for their views and priorities for the state budget. We began
by assessing their sense of the importance of the state budget deficit,
asking this question:
As you may know, the state government currently faces a multibillion
dollar gap between state spending and state revenue. Do you think that
this deficit is not a problem, somewhat a problem, or a big problem
for the people of California today?
As reflected in Table One, more than eight out of ten respondents thought
the deficit “a big problem.”
Table One
Is the State Budget Deficit A Problem? |
| A Big Problem |
82% |
| Somewhat a Problem |
15% |
| Not a Problem |
3% |
We went on to ask about preferred methods for dealing with the problem,
asking the following question:
How would you prefer to deal with the state’s multibillion dollar
gap between state spending and state revenue: mostly through spending
cuts, mostly through tax increases, through a mix of spending cuts and
tax increases, OR do you think that it is okay for the state to borrow
money and run a budget deficit?
As shown in Table Two, spending cuts together with a “mix of spending
cuts and tax increases” were about equally favored by our respondents.
Table Two
Preferred Way to Deal with the State’s Budget Gap |
| Mostly through spending cuts |
43% |
| Through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases |
42% |
| Mostly through tax increases |
8% |
| It is okay for the state to borrow money and run a budget deficit |
7% |
When we reviewed the preferred ways to deal with the state’s
budget gap by respondent’s political party registration, we found
an expected result. Among respondents who told us that they were registered
Republicans, 57% chose “mostly spending cuts.” That option
was chosen by 30% of respondents who told us that they were registered
Democrats.
Meanwhile, 54% of Democrats chose “through a mix of spending cuts
and tax increases,” an option that 32% of Republicans said they
preferred.
With spending cuts clearly on the table, then, it is appropriate to
ask just what Orange County respondents would like to see cut. We posed
major areas of state spending to respondents and asked the following
question:
Now I want to list some areas that might be cut in order to balance
the state budget. For each area, would you support cutting the budget
a lot, cutting the budget somewhat, or not cutting the budget at all?
The areas we posed are shown in Table Three. The list was rotated,
which means that the items had an equal number of times to be asked
first in the order, to be asked second, etc.
Table Three
Areas of the State Budget Nominated for Cuts |
- Help for disabled and elderly in their homes
- Social Security supplements for low-income, aged, blind and
disabled
- Help for persons with brain disabilities
- Preparing single mothers with children to enter the work force
- Protecting the state’s natural environment
- Medi-Cal health care for the poor· Mental health care
for the poor
- Prisons
- Public universities
- Community colleges
- Schools, kindergarten through high school
- Aid to local governments for parks, fire, police and other
things
- The legislature’s budget
- The court’s budget
- The governor and the executive branch budget
|
As we detail in Table Four, the area that respondents were least anxious
to cut was “Schools, kindergarten through high school.”
The area they were most ready to cut was “The governor and the
executive branch budget.”
| Table Four
Support for State Budget Cuts, by Program Area |
|
|
Don’t Cut
Budget At All |
Cut the Budget
Somewhat |
Cut the Budget
A Lot |
|
Schools, kindergarten through high school |
69% |
26% |
6%* |
|
Social Security supplements for low-income, aged,
blind and disabled |
66% |
30% |
5%* |
|
Help for disabled and elderly in their homes |
65% |
29% |
6% |
|
Help for persons with brain disabilities |
55% |
39% |
6% |
|
Medi-Cal health care for the poor |
55% |
37% |
8% |
|
Mental health care for the poor |
53% |
41% |
6% |
|
Community colleges |
52% |
42% |
7%* |
|
Aid to local governments for parks, fire, police
and other things |
48% |
42% |
11%* |
|
Public universities |
47% |
43% |
10% |
|
Preparing single mothers with children to enter
the work force |
41% |
45% |
14% |
|
Protecting the state’s natural environment |
40% |
46% |
14% |
|
Prisons |
26% |
47% |
27% |
|
The courts budget |
23% |
55% |
22% |
|
The legislature’s budget |
9% |
45% |
46% |
|
The governor and the executive branch budget |
8% |
48% |
45%* |
|
*Totals may exceed 100% due
to rounding. |
“Schools continue to be first in the hearts of the taxpayers,”
noted Keith Boyum, director of the Center for Public Policy and CSUF
Professor of Political Science. “The policy-makers in Sacramento
continue to be the last priority, with the courts doing better than
the legislature and the governor. That result is entirely familiar from
many previous studies in political science: judges win some esteem but
in these numbers, not much budget priority, as legislators and often
executives win scorn.”
“The vulnerable appear also to touch a soft spot in the hearts
of county respondents,” commented Phillip Gianos, CSUF Professor
of Political Science. “The aged, blind, poor, elderly, ill and
disabled lead some familiar programs like local government aid and public
universities.”
“The public would be pleased to cut those areas of the budget
where the money is not,” said Boyum. “Taken together, the
budgets for the courts, the legislature and the governor and executive
branch may add up to 4% of the general fund. If we whacked them 25%,
which would be a devastating cut, it would amount to less than 1% of
the general fund, or perhaps three-quarters of a billion dollars. While
that may be a down payment in some people’s minds, it won’t
close a budget gap that’s estimated at $12 billion or more. And
no dispassionate observer would agree that the need devastating cuts
is due to the policy-makers in state government anyway.
“Meanwhile,” Boyum continued, “the public does not
wish to cut areas where the money is in fact allocated. Seven out of
ten respondents don’t want K-12 education cut at all. Yet just
the portion of the budget for kindergarten through high school mandated
by Proposition 98 amounts to 37% of the general fund, according to the
Legislative Analyst’s review of Governor Schwarzenegger’s
January budget proposal. (It’s actually nearer to 40% of state
spending by other calculations, when additional non-Proposition 98 spending
is taken into account.)” |