Schwarzenegger proposes slashing billions from social services (Orange: appointed, credit card)

[18Montclair]

The scorched-earth plan, the grimmest ever proposed in Schwarzenegger's six-plus years in office, relies largely on cuts to social and health care services to address a $19.1 billion deficit for the fiscal year starting on July 1.

It calls for cutting state funding for local mental health services by 60 percent and slashing $637.1 million from in-home supportive services for the elderly, blind or disabled.

It proposes a $523 million cut to Medi-Cal by limiting care to over 7 million Californians and saves the state $16.5 million by increasing premiums and cost sharing in the Healthy Families program.

It also proposes the elimination of adult day health care centers used by 35,000 seniors statewide and continues a $133 million cut to services for abused and neglected children.

But the proposals getting the most attention were Schwarzenegger calls to eliminate all $1.1 billion in funding for CalWORKS and $1.2 billion in funding for needs-based, subsidized child care.

CalWORKS, the state's welfare-to-work program, serves 1.4 million people statewide and 53,000 in Orange County, with the vast majority of recipients everywhere being children.

Schwarzenegger proposes slashing billions from social services | budget, state, schwarzenegger - News - The Orange County Register

This is really disheartening. I feel so bad for those seniors, poor and sick people who stand to lose vital services.

There has to be some other way.

[18Montclair]

[left]"i believe a budget should be a reflection of what we in california value most, and what my administration stands for, in good times and in bad," he said. "it should still provide a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens, but we are not because our budget system is broken. I now have no choice but to stand here today and call for the elimination of some important programs."

in addition to eliminating calworks, the state welfare program that serves 1.4 million people - two-thirds of them children - schwarzenegger's proposal includes the elimination of all child care programs except after school and preschool programs. That program subsidizes child care for about 142,000 children.

the governor's plan would also shift a number of costs to counties and cities. He is proposing a 60 percent cut to community mental health programs. That $435 million in costs would fall to counties. And he wants to move 15,000 state prisoners to local jails to save $244 million. The budget also includes a $750 million cut to the in home supportive services program, which provides home care to 430,000 elderly, sick or disabled californians and employs 376,000 people.


read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/14/ba2s1dev6k.dtl&type=politics&tsp=1#ixzz0nxktqhnh

[/left]

[NYSD1995]

Isn't welfare a federal program? Why do we need a state welfare program as well?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Isn't welfare a federal program? Why do we need a state welfare program as well?

This is not a defense of the cuts, merely an explanation.

Most social programs rely heavily on federal matching funds. In other words, the state makes the expenditures and only then do the feds provide a reimbursement, usually up to 50%. If the state does not spend state funds, the feds provide no reimbursement.

You also have to realize that very few programs are permissive/voluntary and it is only those that can be cut by the state. The rest are either state mandates, usually due to passed initiatives and statutes passed by the Legislature, or federal mandates. That leaves a relatively small portion of the budget that can be cut or eliminated.

[HighPlainsDrifter73]

I live in Illinois and I think whatever happens in California will eventually happen here. Our budget is a mess also and the state is not paying some of its bills.

[hsw]

Commie welfare states are not sustainable, as EU's meltdown shows

TX has one of world's 3 most powerful economies, just behind CA's and NYC's, yet has 0% state income tax and well-managed state budget and pro-business ethos, despite many of same social ills of CA/NYC

Suspect bankruptcy of some form is only way to cure unions/welfare mentality of most citizens (usually non-taxpayers and economic parasites, though vocal voters or illegals) of CA/NY/NJ/IL...

[Ceece]

He tried this before several months ago. If I remember correctly most of the cuts he made were overturned in court with the logic that since we have been giving support to people all this time we can't ever stop since they now depend on it to survive. Kind of sucks. And makes me never want to help anyone ever again so I'm not on the hook for the rest of my life. But SOME of the programs provide assitance to just a small number of people and I think they should go. CalWorks is kind of a joke and hasn't done squat for anyone I know so whatever.

[18Montclair]

Darrell Steinberg's response:

"I could speak for a long time about the past and where to point the finger. I could talk about sledgehammers, and automobiles and torn up credit cards.

I could talk about blowing up boxes. I could talk about one of many silly metaphors. But I will leave it at this: I am disappointed that the Governor has chosen to surrender. That he sees California as unfixable and that he proposes a budget that kills the economy and harms so many. It is a non-starter.

If God forbid this budget became a reality, California would be the only state in the union to not have a safety net for children. Leadership is not about blaming others. It's about finding solutions to tough problems to preserve the state and its people.

In their comments throughout the day the Governor's representatives have described the cuts he proposes as quote "terrible." I believe him ...but his actions say it would be more terrible to delay $2.1 billion in corporate tax breaks than to save children, the elderly, and the most vulnerable. His actions say it is more terrible to impose a tax on oil profits than complete elimination of county mental health services and child care. He appears to have decided that the solutions are too difficult to achieve so he will accept these "terrible" cuts.
We refuse to wave the white flag.

California's elected leaders- including myself- and the governor and the others need to stand up. Given the choice between enacting $6 billion in cuts to services for the elderly, children and the disabled, or delaying corporate tax breaks, I'm for delaying corporate tax breaks.

Given the choice between cutting education by nearly $3 billion or seeking revenues from oil companies extracting oil in California, I'm for getting revenues from oil companies profiting handsomely in this state.

But I want to go beyond I think what you expect here which is sort of the give and take....And [provide a] the recitation of our genuinely held beliefs and philosophy.
I want to state my perspective on the overall situation very clearly. In my view-having now my tenth year in the legislature, second year as leader, having served on numerous budget conference committees-we have come to the end of trying to prop up this failed structure.

There is no more triage. The status quo is unsustainable. Our government is not structured to quickly and effectively respond to an economic crisis of this magnitude.
We are so balkanized that the people don't know who collects the taxes and who provides the services. Yes we need revenue, and we will fight for revenue, but not to prop up this outdated structure.

We must use this crisis now, not next year, not another report, not another study. We need to bring government closer to the people.

The inside term is "realignment."

What it means to the people of California is that we must take many of these state programs that otherwise may be decimated, and give them to the locals and the school districts. Give them restored revenue and the ability to raise revenue themselves.

This is not theory. This is not academic. This is not a luxury. Those who say - "too difficult, too complicated", I challenge you to do this: Bring forward an alternative that balances the budget, preserves essential public investments, and does not rely on gimmicks.
Finally, I do want to respond to one thing that the Governor highlighted in his comments about the tax structure. I think we all agree that California's tax structure needs updating. But to say that we are living through this budget crisis solely or primarily because of the tax structure is just plain wrong.

The Legislative Analyst said clearly that if we had adopted the Parsky Commission's recommendations . . . revenue would actually drop $10 billion. [The] Governor has this theory about GDP that he keeps talking about, but this is what we know about California: Personal consumption in California has fallen by the largest percentage since 1980. Home prices have plunged dramatically since 2007 from an average of $484,000 thousand a home to $250,000. The share of corporate income tax paid in California has fallen by nearly half since 1981.

So this idea that if our tax structure had only kept up with some phantom robust growth in our economy over the last couple of years . . .This country, the world, and this state are living through the most precipitous drop in revenue, and it would be precipitous no matter what tax system we had.The real answer here is we must restructure and realign this outdated structure that we have here in California and we need to provide the revenue to the entity that is in the best place to provide the services.

The California Majority Report // Steinberg: Budget is a "Nonstarter"

[EscapeCalifornia]

The collapse of welfare states is never pretty but its inevitable. Once you start giving away public funds to a million different groups of people, it becomes impossible to slowly back yourself away from the financial cliff. No one will give up "their" government money until the well simply runs dry.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

The collapse of welfare states is never pretty but its inevitable. Once you start giving away public funds to a million different groups of people, it becomes impossible to slowly back yourself away from the financial cliff. No one will give up "their" government money until the well simply runs dry.

We arent talking about people who are abusing the system.

Most of the people who stand to be affected by this really need the help. We can't turn our backs on poor people, sick people, elderly people and our babies. They are not living luxuriously at public expense-they are simply surviving.

We have to come up with something else.