Orange County Residents’
Views About
State Budget, Taxes and Spending
March 25, 2004
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.)”
“Then there is the spending on behalf of the
aged, blind, poor, elderly, ill and disabled,” Gianos remarked.
“In rough terms, spending on these programs amounts to a quarter
of the general fund. Yet more than half of our respondents would
wish this portion of the budget not to be cut at all.”
“In the end, we find respondents who are not anxious for tax
hikes, and not favoring continuing deficits – but still not
wanting most cuts to fall where most money is to be found,”
concluded Boyum.
Reviewing these results, Stan Oftelie, president and
CEO of the Orange County Business Council, commented:
“The case has been made that California has
a budget problem, but no one has defined a clear path to a solution.
Right or wrong, people don’t think they are getting their
money’s worth from government, so they want politicians to
keep delivering services with the tax money available. Most government
officials say that is impossible. That mixture – a reluctant
public and an entrenched state government – is a surefire
recipe for legislative gridlock on California’s budget.
“The Governor has shown a remarkable ability
to sell workable solutions to complex problems. But, right now,
the public doesn’t see any solution in sight, and they don’t
have any new ideas to offer.”
Previous results of CSUF/OCBC quarterly surveys are
conveniently accessible on the OCBC web site. See: http://www.ocbc.org/resourcesf.htm
The current survey was conducted for the CSUF
Center for Public Policy / Orange County Business Council team by
the Social Science Research Center at California State University,
Fullerton (SSRC). The SSRC Director is Dr. Gregory Robinson.
Telephone interviews were conducted utilizing
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) equipment and software.
The CATI system is a sophisticated information-gathering protocol
that contributes to the accuracy of data and to preserving the random
nature of the sample.
A draft survey instrument was provided by the
Center for Public Policy and refined by the SSRC for comprehensiveness,
flow, length and factors that influence respondent cooperation and
interest. Sample design and technical assistance with data analysis
was provided by the SSRC.
The survey of Orange County residents took place
between Feb. 4 and Feb. 22, 2004. Four hundred sixty-five randomly
selected households are represented in the data. Interviews were
conducted in English only.
Calculated conservatively, the confidence interval
for findings noted is plus / minus 4.64 per cent. Confidence intervals
around subgroups within the sample are broader.
« back to Research
|