But how legitimate is Brown's claim? It's shaky, if one looks at the numbers and assumptions behind the rhetoric.
It assumes that the revenues in the budget are valid, but in fact no one knows whether increasing the marginal income tax rate on high-income taxpayers could lead them to either move from California or shelter their incomes, particularly capital gains, from the state's reach.
The budget also assumes that California's economy will continue a slow but steady recovery, thus increasing retail sales and personal incomes on which those revenues are based. But California's economic future is very cloudy.
It assumes, too, that Brown's fellow Democrats in the Legislature resist pressures from major constituent groups to rescind some of the cuts in health and welfare services, and that the courts can live with continued erosion of financing without imploding.
Even if Brown succeeds in balancing income and outgo during the 2013-14 fiscal year, however, the tens of billions of dollars in debt run up during the previous half-decade of deficits will continue to fester.
The state also faces an ever-mounting burden of servicing bonded debt that has built up over the last two decades – and he wants to increase that debt even more for a bullet-train system of dubious efficacy.
Finally, as Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has pointed out, Brown's multiyear budget plan ignores ever-growing unfunded liabilities for retirees' pensions and health care.