Ever since Democrats took control in California after "Republican" Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2011, they have overseen a steady and, at times, sharp increase in state spending. When former Governor Jerry Brown (D) was elected, state spending for the fiscal year's previously approved budget was approximately $98 billion. That is a lot of money, but with a state population of approximately 37.6 million people in 2011, one could assert that the amount of money allocated for spending was proportional to the population. And that is where the nightmare begins for the California taxpayer.

By the time Brown was about to be termed out of office, he proposed his final budget in 2018, which was passed in June of that year. In seven years, the state went from spending $98 billion to over double that amount at $201.4 billion. In that year, the state's population had exploded to approximately...wait for it... 39.4 million people, an increase of only 1.8 million people. A couple of things explained the huge increase in spending: a sharp rise in revenue when voters approved a ballot proposition that instituted heavy tax increases on the state's top earners and an expanding state economy that was generating more revenue than before. But at that same time, the state had been incurring a massive amount of debt. 

[...]David Crane, an investor and university lecturer who delves into state finances as an avocation, calculates that California has added more than $200 billion in debt during the last decade [as of 2018].

This debt was concentrated heavily on the state's unfunded liabilities for the pensions and retirement healthcare that was owed to state or local government employees. This issue alone almost bankrupted several cities in California, with three cities having to file for bankruptcy protection. 

One was Vallejo, whose recently retired city manager, Daniel Keen, joined his colleagues in seeking relief, saying he expected pension costs for police to reach 98 percent of payroll in a decade and hinting that Vallejo could slip into insolvency again.

A new study for the League of California Cities, conducted by a consulting firm, Bartel Associates, projects that over the next seven years overall city pension costs, excluding health care, will nearly double, reaching an average of 15.8 percent of their general fund budgets by 2024-25. Costs for police and fire personnel will climb to well over 60 percent of payroll.

Fast forward to 2023, and we can see yet another boon in government spending, the likes of which we have never seen in California history. In the five years since Brown left office, Governor Gavin Newsom took Brown's last budget of $201.4 billion and blew it up to a whopping $310.8 billion for fiscal year 2023/2024. But here is the kicker: While California's population has grown since 2011, the population began to decline in 2020.  

According to new data compiled by The American Redistricting Project, California is forecasted to lose five additional seats in Congress by the 2030 reapportionment cycle, or census. Their forecasting model uses data provided by the United States Census Bureau, which has shown a steady decline in the population of California since 2020, the date of the last census. In fact, since the 2020 census, California has seen a net loss of 508,903 residents. 

So why is it that with a net difference of approximately two million more people in California than in 2011, California Democrats want to spend $212 billion more? Yes, we have to adjust for inflation, sure, but that doesn't explain an over $200 billion increase in spending. The "high-speed rail" project to nowhere is costing $113 billion now, with the final price sure to increase, crime on the rise, homelessness completely and utterly out of control, and a host of other issues beg the question: Where in the world is all this money going to? 

When it comes to homelessness, it is the perfect example of government waste and fraud. When every Democrat in the state has either campaigned on it or built a policy agenda on it after getting elected, only to see it continue to get worse, this shows a problem. As of this report, California has spent $17 billion on the issue, and now the state has set aside another $20 billion for just this year alone. This state's homeless population gets higher year after year, and best estimates say there are at least 170,000 people who are homeless in the state. 

But Democrats are pushing to spend more and more of taxpayers' money, and we have nothing really to show for it. The majority of California residents can't even afford a home unless a couple brings at least $200,000 in combined income to the table. 

The report goes on to say that in order to purchase a median-priced, single-family home in California, residents must have a minimal annual income of over $200,000 to afford it. 

For an existing single-family home at California’s median price of $830,620, buyers in the second quarter needed a minimum annual income of $208,000 to qualify for a 30-year mortgage after a 20% down payment. Loans on condos and townhouses, with a median $640,000 price, required a minimum $160,400 income. 

It continues to look like the Golden State is not a place where people can live a decent, middle-class lifestyle. Over the past seven to 10 years alone, California's cost of living has increased exponentially. Since 2017, with the passage of SB1 (also referred to as the gas tax), consumers in the state now see an additional $0.58 per gallon of gasoline and diesel across the state. 

It is pretty insulting, given that the median annual income for California is just $31,960. How do the Democrats expect people to pay for a new or used car, let alone a home? The cards are stacked against the average California taxpayer, especially for those in the lower class. Time to replace the Democrats with people who are, at the very least, fiscally conservative.