To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
May 1, 1995 - (1) The Impact of Federal Spending and Tax Proposals on California, and (2) Economic and Revenue Developments
March 1, 1995 - The 1995-96 Governor's Budget proposes a 15 percent across-the-board income tax cut for both corporations and individuals, along with maintaining the high-income tax rates scheduled to sunset in 1996. The plan's stated purpose is to reduce the tax burden on individuals and businesses in California so as to stimulate business location and expansion in the state, thereby improving the economy.
March 1, 1995 - (1) Trends in K-12 Education Funding, and (2) Economic and Revenue Developments
February 15, 1995 - Presented to: Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
February 8, 1995 - Presented to: Newly Elected Supervisors
October 1, 1994 - As part ofthe 1994-95 budget package, the state put into place a so-called trigger mechanism. This mechanism was viewed as being necessary to ensure repayment of money borrowed from investors to finance the budget plan.
May 1, 1994 - April Revenues Weaker Than Forecast
April 1, 1994 - California Update: The Fiscal Impact of Tuberculosis in California
March 1, 1994 - California Update: California’s Cash Crunch
February 23, 1994 - Much of the blame for the state's continuing budget shortfalls over the past three years can be placed on the dismal performance of the California economy. The substantial population increases of recent years have maintained constant upward pressure on demands for state services. At the same time, declining employment levels, lower real per capita incomes, and falling property values have limited the ability of the state's major revenue sources to meet these demands. Despite substantial gains in the national economy over the past year, economic activity in most regions of California continues to decline or stagnate.
February 23, 1994 - General Fund revenues are expected to support 73 percent of the proposed $55.6 billion total 1994-95 spending plan. This is a decline from the 78 percent share these revenues represented in fiscal year 1992-93, in part due to the continuing slow growth of General Fund revenues relative to special fund revenues, but primarily because of past and proposed shifts of revenues from the General Fund to special fund accounts.