California has long struggled with budget problems, which have persisted regardless of who’s in charge of governing the state. But when Gov. Gavin Newsom took over, he promised the Golden State had already been pulled “back from the brink of fiscal insolvency.”
Unfortunately, the state “defers recognizing losses incurred when the net pension liability increases,” the report added. This leaves California with $58.4 billion in hidden debt, which was not mentioned by the Newsom administration.
Accounting Expert: CA Remains Broke
In an interview with The Epoch Times, Sheila A. Weinberg, the founder and CEO of TIA, said that while the organization doesn’t advocate for any tax or spending policy, it is clear that the Golden State is in the red.Despite this, Weinberg added, Newsom continues to defend his budget, “while the state is drowning in debt,” she said.
“Unfortunately, when elected officials claim their government has a surplus many people believe the government has extra cash available to spend. The reality is, while the state is projecting it will take in more money than it spends this year, the state still has hundreds of billions of dollars of unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities and state bonds.”
“Touting a surplus is similar to me claiming I have a surplus because I think I will earn more than I spend next year, but not mentioning I have huge amounts of credit card debt,” she added.
Are Bad Investment Strategies to Blame?
According to a June 16 Wall Street Journal report, California could have better prepared for its pension liabilities if the state had made better investment decisions.Currently, the state’s public pension fund relies on investments in socially conscious causes. But because of ongoing budgetary concerns, the fund is facing a crisis, and officials are considering breaking with their restrictive investment strategy.
If CalPERS decides to pivot away from current investments, it may be looking at tobacco companies and even gun manufacturers for a better return, prompting progressive advocates to bemoan the state for the decision.
If the change depends on board member Jason Perez, then perhaps California taxpayers may get somewhat of a break.
Last year, Perez made a pledge to stop limiting the fund’s sources based on politics. However, it’s expected the fund’s investments would have to yield much greater returns if the state is willing to keep its promises to state workers.