California is one of the most influentialstates of the nation, and as of right now, one of the more economicallytroubled ones.

Within our state's budget, there is plenty thatnot only can be trimmed down, but deserves to be trimmed down. As manyCalifornians may agree by now, it's time to trim the fat; and not justceremonially, but really. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared early thisweek that California is in a state of emergency, and the budget mustbe amended to reflect, and subsequently, fix that.

California has the eighth largest economyin the world. This year it is especially important to come up with a reasonableway to close the deficit, as the state personal income tax, which is one of thesingle most lucrative ways the state makes money, is slated to be down at least$389 million from last year.

According to the official California budget summary, the state isprojected to have at least a $17 - $24.3 billion deficit, which has morerecently been estimated to be closer to $28 billion.

Asthe most populous state in the union, and one of the great sources ofinnovation in this country, there are ways that leaders both in government andthe private sector can come up with ways to not only decrease the deficit, butput the state on track to a future surplus. According to the budget summary, "Theoutlook for the California economy is for little growthin 2008 followed by slow growth in 2009 and moderate growth in 2010."

It's time to tighten the belt and scale down towhat we actually can afford. In a time of fiscal crisis, we cannot afford tostart extravagant new projects, no matter how wonderful they may sound. Once weare out of the red, we can begin to once more consider expensive but worthwhileprojects. Any responsible taxpayer knows that when prices and expenses increaseand revenue does not, certain areas must be tightened or cut out entirely. In astate as central to so much business as California, it's tough to point to oneagency, and simply say, "You're out!" However, we need to look at thebigger picture and determine what works, what doesn't and what we can actuallyafford to keep.

It's time to realize that in an economic crunch,we cannot enjoy all of the same luxuries we can afford during rosier economictimes. This is not to say that such cuts should remain permanent, but they mustcertainly be considered at the present time, as we consider the feasibility ofwhat we can and must discard over the fiscal year 2008 – 2009.

California has more than $2 billion inreserve funds. However, looking at the amount of money that will be spent carteblanche this coming year, such proposals are simply unacceptable in this timeof need. According to the budget summary, General fundexpenditures are proposed to be cut by more than $1.7 billion, including a $253million cut in the category titled "Resources" (or a 13.5 percent change fromthe prior year's budget), an $8 million cut in Labor and Workforce Development(7.6 percent of the agency's entire budget) and a $1.362 billion cut infinancing for K-12 Education, only a 3.2 percent cut.

According to projected budget estimates for 2008-2009,Health and Human Services and the K-12 Education fund are the most well-fedagencies of the state, with HHShaving a projected $38 billion budget (with a projected $74 million increasefor the coming year, with a total budget composed of funds from the GeneralFund, Special Fund and Bonds, with about $29.8 billion from the General Fund)and K-12 Education receiving more than $45.7 billion (made up of the GeneralFund, Special Fund and Bonds, closer to $41 billion from the General Fundalone), with a projected decrease of more than $1.3 billion. Looking at theofficial budget breakdown, it becomes clear that nearly half of the entirestate budget is dedicated to education. Considering there are many schoolsthat, despite healthy funding, are still failing, should the state continue onin the same trajectory, expecting change?

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing overand over and expecting a different result. It would be insane to continue topour a fantastic amount of state and federal monies into a flawed system, withno more strict accountability than ever before.

On top of that, this year's budget proposes an increase of$1.5 billion (totaling $71 billion), despite the fact that in the same budgetanalysis, it is forecast that the state will see "little growth" in2008 and "slow growth" in 2009. As a trend, funding for the publicschool system has increased steadily over the years, and no dramatic resultingtrend in higher testing scores or school passing rates has come as acorrelative effect. This begs the question, are those behind this fundinghypocrisy acting a bit insane, per Mr. Einstein's definition?

When in a budget crunch, don't stretch resourcesever thinner, via luxury proposals. In this year's state budget, $9.9 billionhave been allocated to give the High-Speed Rail Authority, to build a railsystem across the state of California. Proposition 1A (the Safe, ReliableHigh-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act) was approved by the voters in November,and will require billions of dollars from both the state and federal budgets;billions of dollars which are not lying around. This was approved before manyresidents realized the depth of the budget woes. This is one project that canand should be shelved until the budget is in better shape.

Another suggested increase in the proposed budget summary is$2 million to be given to the Secretary for Business, Housing andTransportation, to the California Economic Development Fund, in the name ofimplementing the "10-Year San Joaquin Valley Strategic ActionProposal," the funding that will "sustain a public-private partnershipto promote economic development, workforce development, education,transportation, land use and environmental issues." Knowing the roughdetails, this sounds like $2 million that could and should be better usedelsewhere; in addition, some of the important aspects of this proposal arealready covered within other agencies, including education.

Plans such as these, which spill over into other departments,seem superfluous at a time when the basic needs of the state need to be met,before millions of dollars are spent investigating "environmentalissues" that the EPA and a myriad of other organizations can alreadyhandle quite competently.