What has happened to California? It has gone from a state that my high school band director, in the 1970s, turned to for examples of how outstanding band programs are created and sustained. The example of California band programs helped our high school band from a small suburb of Denver become one of the best marching bands in the country. Now California schools routinely fail to teach students the basic three Rs, Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, much less the fourth and just as important R, the aRts.

But education is not the only thing that has failed in California. California is in the depths of fiscal disaster. If the Supreme Court had not ruled that states cannot declare bankruptcy, that is exactly what California would now be forced to do.

So what is the problem? Why doesn’t California have enough money? Despite the impending disaster, voters overwhelmingly defeated a set of measures designed to bring in more revenue. What happened? I think the numbers below explain it. I’m sure that very few voters know these numbers, but they can feel them. In this economic downturn they finally feel the full pain of an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the private sector citizen to government, government employees, and friends and supporters of the government. The numbers below paint a very different picture from the “woe is me we don’t have enough money to do the job” picture painted by our elected officials.

Here are the numbers:

In 1970-71 the population of California was 19,971,071. The consumer price index was 38.84. The total California budget was $4,000,000,000. The portion of that budget provided by the federal government was $880,000,000 (estimated from the average of 22% for all states in 1970).

In 2000-01 the population of California was 33,998,767. The consumer price index was 172.2. The total California budget was $99,424,137,212. The portion of that budget provided by the federal government was $41,198,725,368 (41.4%).

In 2008-09 the population of California was 36,756,666. The consumer price index was 215.30. The total California budget was $144,489,190,000. The portion of that budget provided by the federal government was $59,590,923,000 (41.2%).

In 2008 the population of California was 1.08 times larger than it was in 2000.

In 2008 the population of California was 1.84 times larger than it was in 1970.

In 2008 the consumer price index was 1.25 times larger than it was in 2000.

In 2008 the consumer price index was 5.54 times larger than it was in 1970.

Multiplying the increase in population times the consumer price index:

In 2008 the product of population times the consumer price index was 1.35 times larger than it was in 2000.

In 2008 the product of population times the consumer price index was 10.19 times larger than it was in 1970.

In 2008 the total California budget was 1.45 times higher than it was in 2000.

In 2008 the total California budget was 36.12 times higher than it was in 1970.

So, adjusting for population and inflation:

In 2008 the total California budget was 1.07 times higher than it was in 2000.

In 2008 the total California budget was 3.54 times higher than it was in 1970.

In other words, adjusted for inflation, the state is spending 3.54 times more per person than it did in 1970. Throw away the entire $59 billion from the federal government and California would still be spending over two times what it did in 1970.

In 1970 California was known for its superior infrastructure and its superior education system. It did this spending 3.54 less per person (adjusted for inflation) than it does now, when infrastructure is falling apart, education is falling apart, and the state is on the verge of financial collapse.

In the past thirty-nine years California has transformed itself from a successful, model state to a model of governmental inefficiency and political patronage. It has become a machine for transferring wealth from those that work in the private sector to those that work for, or are well connected to, the public sector. The idea that we cannot have good government without massive infusions of cash is absurd. With 3.54 times less cash in 1970 we had good government.

Government will always be inefficient. Large and lucrative government is a magnet for power seekers and the corrupt. That is unavoidable. Our self appointed nannies aren’t smart enough to manage all thirty-six million of us, nor can they be trusted. The nanny state cannot succeed. It is antithetical to our basic American character. Government, at all levels, has very important functions in our society. But, because of the nature and imperfections of humankind, we must limit those functions. Our founders understood this and this understanding is reflected throughout our Constitution.

That does not mean that the private sector is devoid of corruption. One of the proper functions of government is to provide a balance to the excesses of the wealthy and powerful. On the other hand, it is not a proper function of government to balance the rich and powerful by becoming their mirror image, on the opposite end of the teeter-totter but in all senses exactly the same.

The political patronage must stop. The transfer of wealth from the private sector to government must stop. Private sector employees are being raped, robbed, and left on the street with their wallets empty so that our representatives can move cash to their biggest supporters, both in government and out of government. The private sector employee must be treated with respect. The government exists to serve us. We do not exist to serve the government. That at least is the promise made by the Constitution. Liberty is our birthright. Freedom from extortionary taxation is fundamental to that Liberty.

Money from the federal government accounts for 41% of the California budget. Most of that money is earmarked. That means that the state can't decide to do what to do with it. The federal government decides for the state. States need to start standing up to the federal government. The federal government has usurped a huge amount of the power that the Constitution reserves to the states. 41% of the California budget comes from Washington. In essence, the federal government sidesteps Constitutional limits to its power by collecting huge taxes and then blackmailing the states by threatening to withhold money unless the states do what the federal government tells them to do. How are the legislators from forty-nine other states and an overwhelming number of federal bureaucrats qualified to make decisions as to how 41% of California's state budget is spent? They aren't. They simply aren't. Washington D.C. is almost 3000 miles away from California. As the percentage of state budgets provided by the federal government has increased the effectiveness of state governments has dropped. Money and responsibility for its use has been severed. It's not our money. It is free money from the feds. The buck doesn't stop anywhere. It is not free money, it is our money collected from our taxes. The states must fight back and reclaim the powers guaranteed to them in the Constitution.

Gregg Butterfield