The governor’s plan for solving California’s budget crisis is for low-income Californians to die. And, because of the governor’s cuts to Every Woman Counts, its ladies first.
As previously explained on this blog, the governor’s first act of 2010 was to take mammograms away from 100,000 low-income women provided through the Every Woman Counts program. This was in direct violation of the Legislature’s direction this summer. We appropriated what the Department of Public Health (DPH) told us was anticipated to be sufficient funding for the year. We denied DPH’s proposal to reduce eligibility for the program because we did not want to cut women off from this life-saving screening.
Yesterday, the Assembly Budget Committee held a hearing on the governor’s cuts. Dr. Mark Horton, Director of the Department of Public Health, testified that the administration’s decision to reduce mammogram access through EWC was strictly a fiscal decision. But testimony from Dr. Jon Grief of the American Cancer Society showed that early breast cancer detection has an enormous financial benefit to our public health system and these cuts will lead to substantially higher state costs. He cited a U.C. San Francisco study, which found that cancer heath care costs increased from $21,320 for women diagnosed with in situ cancer, to $26,747 for localized cancer, $40,096 for regional cancer, and $52,288 for distant cancer. The majority of these increased costs would be paid for by MediCal.
The administration has offered numerous rationales and defenses for the governor’s cuts to EWC. We have been told that Proposition 99, which funds EWC, is experiencing declining revenues; but there is no evidence that Proposition 99 funds are insufficient to support the current program. In fact, the Legislative Analyst’s Office told us that the state had collected $285 million in 2009/10; the appropriation for EWC was roughly $47million. And, the administration further claims that the Legislature authorized these cuts, which is simply not true.
The governor’s budget proposals for FY 2010-2011 shift Proposition 99 funds away from providing mammograms to other programs usually paid for out of the General Fund. It is, therefore, clear that the governor wants to take Proposition 99 funds to solve the state’s budget crisis.
It appears from evidence produced at the hearing that the governor has taken money appropriated by the Legislature for Every Woman Counts and shifted it to pay for other state liabilities. In order to achieve that funding shift, he shut down enrollment for 6 months and limited eligibility. In doing so, he violated legislative authorization, ensured that low-income women will not get life-saving breast cancer detection, and guaranteed the state will incur more costs for treatment.
Dr. Grief posed the question: What is a life worth? That is the question of this state budget debate. And, it’s time to fight back! Women’s lives are at stake. Every one of us is in some way impacted by breast cancer. While we undoubtedly have a state budget crisis, these cuts create a moral crisis as well. We must pursue less deadly alternatives.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Power Plays and Smelly Cheese
The Assembly Budget Committee met yesterday to discuss California’s cash crisis and deficit. State Controller John Chiang testified that we face a cash crunch for a three week period in March and April. He said any solutions we come up with must be “credible and sustainable.”
What’s the governor’s proposal to address California’s cash crisis? Sadly, it’s just another power play. He seeks unprecedented unilateral authority for the Department of Finance to delay almost all state payments at any time during the next two fiscal years. This would include payments to K-12 schools, community colleges, UCs and CSU, trial courts, Medi-Cal providers, all state vendors, tax refunds, and SSI and CalGrant payments. Such broad, unfettered authority would wreak havoc throughout our state because no one would know when or if they could expect payment.
This is part of a continuing pattern of the Administration’s failure to address California’s problems. Despite the State Controller’s numerous warnings that the state lacks a proper cash cushion and may run out of cash, the Administration has no plan to deal with this crisis.
Once again, the governor has punted to the Legislature. If previous patterns hold true, the governor will soon begin whining to the press that the Legislature is failing to act on his proposal to address the cash crisis. Never mind that his proposal is like Swiss cheese—smelly and full of holes.
The Committee expressed bi-partisan frustration with the administration for failing to make a legitimate proposal to assure that the state pays its bills. One member called this proposal “outrageous;” another called it “breathtaking.” I call it irresponsible and insufficient. It utterly fails the Controller’s test of “credible and sustainable.” I told the Department of Finance to return with a real cash management plan.
Last year, California’s cash shortage stopped 5,400 bond-funded projects, putting many people out of work. It also delayed $2.2 billion worth of tax refunds and resulted in the issuance of 450,000 IOUs. We can and must avoid the same problem this year.
Next week we will begin detailed subcommittee hearings and the Legislature will act before the special session deadline of February 22. We will be working with the Controller, the Legislative Analyst's Office, and the Department of Finance to develop a serious plan that avoids a cash problem. Once we have that immediate problem behind us, we will focus on enacting a fair, timely, and credible budget for FY 2010-2011.
What’s the governor’s proposal to address California’s cash crisis? Sadly, it’s just another power play. He seeks unprecedented unilateral authority for the Department of Finance to delay almost all state payments at any time during the next two fiscal years. This would include payments to K-12 schools, community colleges, UCs and CSU, trial courts, Medi-Cal providers, all state vendors, tax refunds, and SSI and CalGrant payments. Such broad, unfettered authority would wreak havoc throughout our state because no one would know when or if they could expect payment.
This is part of a continuing pattern of the Administration’s failure to address California’s problems. Despite the State Controller’s numerous warnings that the state lacks a proper cash cushion and may run out of cash, the Administration has no plan to deal with this crisis.
Once again, the governor has punted to the Legislature. If previous patterns hold true, the governor will soon begin whining to the press that the Legislature is failing to act on his proposal to address the cash crisis. Never mind that his proposal is like Swiss cheese—smelly and full of holes.
The Committee expressed bi-partisan frustration with the administration for failing to make a legitimate proposal to assure that the state pays its bills. One member called this proposal “outrageous;” another called it “breathtaking.” I call it irresponsible and insufficient. It utterly fails the Controller’s test of “credible and sustainable.” I told the Department of Finance to return with a real cash management plan.
Last year, California’s cash shortage stopped 5,400 bond-funded projects, putting many people out of work. It also delayed $2.2 billion worth of tax refunds and resulted in the issuance of 450,000 IOUs. We can and must avoid the same problem this year.
Next week we will begin detailed subcommittee hearings and the Legislature will act before the special session deadline of February 22. We will be working with the Controller, the Legislative Analyst's Office, and the Department of Finance to develop a serious plan that avoids a cash problem. Once we have that immediate problem behind us, we will focus on enacting a fair, timely, and credible budget for FY 2010-2011.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
IHSS Community: Protect Your Rights, Protect Yourselves
Nancy Riley is the long-time in-home care provider for Michael Condon, a Vietnam veteran who was recently interrogated and threatened at his home by an armed state investigator questioning his IHSS benefits. This alarming incident demands a thorough investigation and I encourage anyone with a similar experience to report it immediately.
Legislation adopted last year calls for unannounced home visits to investigate suspected fraud. However, the legislation also required the Department of Social Services (DSS) to develop protocols for these visits. These protocols have not yet been developed, so it was a big surprise to find out that unannounced visits have already begun with no guidance in place to protect anyone involved. It was also a surprise to find out that the Department plans to purchase Polaroid cameras to photograph IHSS recipients.
These protocols will ensure that home visits are conducted in such a way to protect the integrity of the IHSS program while respecting IHSS clients and providers. DSS has committed to undertaking the requisite stakeholder process, and the Legislature will monitor it to ensure that it does.
In the meantime, I believe these unannounced visits may not yet be legal. Photography is certainly not authorized by law. The governor himself requested this new law and signed it. Now, his administration must abide by it.
Until the home visit protocols are finalized, there is an opportunity for scam artists posing as investigators to come into the homes of IHSS recipients and defraud or abuse them. Therefore, I want to alert everyone in the IHSS community to take the necessary steps to protect yourselves. Confirm the identity of anyone claiming to be a fraud investigator before allowing them to enter your home.
If you are a provider or consumer with concerns about a visit from a fraud investigator, please call the Department of Health Care Services toll free at 1-800-822-6222.
Legislation adopted last year calls for unannounced home visits to investigate suspected fraud. However, the legislation also required the Department of Social Services (DSS) to develop protocols for these visits. These protocols have not yet been developed, so it was a big surprise to find out that unannounced visits have already begun with no guidance in place to protect anyone involved. It was also a surprise to find out that the Department plans to purchase Polaroid cameras to photograph IHSS recipients.
These protocols will ensure that home visits are conducted in such a way to protect the integrity of the IHSS program while respecting IHSS clients and providers. DSS has committed to undertaking the requisite stakeholder process, and the Legislature will monitor it to ensure that it does.
In the meantime, I believe these unannounced visits may not yet be legal. Photography is certainly not authorized by law. The governor himself requested this new law and signed it. Now, his administration must abide by it.
Until the home visit protocols are finalized, there is an opportunity for scam artists posing as investigators to come into the homes of IHSS recipients and defraud or abuse them. Therefore, I want to alert everyone in the IHSS community to take the necessary steps to protect yourselves. Confirm the identity of anyone claiming to be a fraud investigator before allowing them to enter your home.
If you are a provider or consumer with concerns about a visit from a fraud investigator, please call the Department of Health Care Services toll free at 1-800-822-6222.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Finally, Some Less Bad News for IHSS
The Assembly and Senate held an oversight hearing yesterday regarding the administration’s continuing implementation of IHSS changes adopted as part of the FY 2009-2010 budget, affecting 460,000 IHSS consumers and 385,000 IHSS providers. After two contentious hearings in the past few months, we heard encouraging news that the administration is starting to work with stakeholders and improve its approach.
When the first changes to IHSS took effect on November 1 for the enrollment of new IHSS providers, there was great confusion about how the new enrollment procedures would work. Our hearings revealed that this was the result of poor, conflicting, and late communications from the Department of Social Services (DSS). Further information is here.
As a result of our oversight hearings, DSS has developed a more collaborative working relationship with counties and it has begun more meaningful stakeholder consultations. This is encouraging news, especially since more program changes loom just around the corner.
But we are not out of the woods yet. We continue to face new challenges:
• New provider requirements - The number of providers in "pending" status (those who have begun the enrollment process, but not yet completed it), totals 20,172. Only 9,556 providers have completed the process. The gap between providers who have and haven't met the requirements is growing wider every passing day. In order to meet demand, 385,000 current providers need to complete this process by June 30. Based on our experience to date, this looks unrealistic.
• Governor wants IHSS consumers photographed – The governor’s 2010-2011 budget proposes to buy Polaroid cameras to photograph IHSS consumers in order to prevent fraud. New changes to the law require fingerprinting of IHSS consumers as of April 1, but because the administration is unable to implement this requirement on a timely basis, the governor proposes to photograph all consumers in the meantime. As I said at the hearing, IHSS consumers are entitled to a measure of privacy and the law at this time does not require photographing; my budget committee will look skeptically at this proposal.
• IHSS consumers and providers are being harassed – Nancy Riley, an IHSS provider from San Diego, told the committee that an armed state investigator recently conducted a surprise anti-fraud visit to her client’s home. The investigator aggressively interrogated them and threatened to revoke her client’s IHSS services. Since the law allows anti-fraud visits to occur only after protocols are developed with stakeholder involvement, which has not begun, the committee had serious questions about this incident and we are investigating it.
With these and other significant issues to work through, it was constructive to hear DSS representatives make the following points in their testimony.
• John Wagner, Director of DSS, announced that the department will conduct a stakeholder process to provide opportunities for the IHSS community to engage the department on the issues raised at the hearing. He also announced that DSS will soon offer the Legislature budget trailer bill language relating to IHSS implementation challenges. After his department lobbied the Senate to oppose SB 69 which would have resolved these problems last year, I look forward to seeing their ideas.
• Eva Lopez, Deputy Director of Adult Programs at DSS, also announced that new materials relating to IHSS program changes will be posted on the department’s website to improve information access and transparency.
My bottom line in this discussion is that the mistakes of the past must be avoided so that all will be prepared for the significant changes to come in IHSS. The IHSS community needs to know that the ball won’t be dropped again.
Access to IHSS cannot be jeopardized needlessly because of bureaucratic fumbling. That is not reform. It’s a formula for creating a crisis that preys on the vulnerable who have a right to receive these services.
We won’t agree on everything. But we do need to work together openly and honestly. I look forward to seeing a more transparent and collaborative process in the months ahead, with better program outcomes for all involved.
All materials produced by the Assembly Budget Committee for this hearing are available here.
When the first changes to IHSS took effect on November 1 for the enrollment of new IHSS providers, there was great confusion about how the new enrollment procedures would work. Our hearings revealed that this was the result of poor, conflicting, and late communications from the Department of Social Services (DSS). Further information is here.
As a result of our oversight hearings, DSS has developed a more collaborative working relationship with counties and it has begun more meaningful stakeholder consultations. This is encouraging news, especially since more program changes loom just around the corner.
But we are not out of the woods yet. We continue to face new challenges:
• New provider requirements - The number of providers in "pending" status (those who have begun the enrollment process, but not yet completed it), totals 20,172. Only 9,556 providers have completed the process. The gap between providers who have and haven't met the requirements is growing wider every passing day. In order to meet demand, 385,000 current providers need to complete this process by June 30. Based on our experience to date, this looks unrealistic.
• Governor wants IHSS consumers photographed – The governor’s 2010-2011 budget proposes to buy Polaroid cameras to photograph IHSS consumers in order to prevent fraud. New changes to the law require fingerprinting of IHSS consumers as of April 1, but because the administration is unable to implement this requirement on a timely basis, the governor proposes to photograph all consumers in the meantime. As I said at the hearing, IHSS consumers are entitled to a measure of privacy and the law at this time does not require photographing; my budget committee will look skeptically at this proposal.
• IHSS consumers and providers are being harassed – Nancy Riley, an IHSS provider from San Diego, told the committee that an armed state investigator recently conducted a surprise anti-fraud visit to her client’s home. The investigator aggressively interrogated them and threatened to revoke her client’s IHSS services. Since the law allows anti-fraud visits to occur only after protocols are developed with stakeholder involvement, which has not begun, the committee had serious questions about this incident and we are investigating it.
With these and other significant issues to work through, it was constructive to hear DSS representatives make the following points in their testimony.
• John Wagner, Director of DSS, announced that the department will conduct a stakeholder process to provide opportunities for the IHSS community to engage the department on the issues raised at the hearing. He also announced that DSS will soon offer the Legislature budget trailer bill language relating to IHSS implementation challenges. After his department lobbied the Senate to oppose SB 69 which would have resolved these problems last year, I look forward to seeing their ideas.
• Eva Lopez, Deputy Director of Adult Programs at DSS, also announced that new materials relating to IHSS program changes will be posted on the department’s website to improve information access and transparency.
My bottom line in this discussion is that the mistakes of the past must be avoided so that all will be prepared for the significant changes to come in IHSS. The IHSS community needs to know that the ball won’t be dropped again.
Access to IHSS cannot be jeopardized needlessly because of bureaucratic fumbling. That is not reform. It’s a formula for creating a crisis that preys on the vulnerable who have a right to receive these services.
We won’t agree on everything. But we do need to work together openly and honestly. I look forward to seeing a more transparent and collaborative process in the months ahead, with better program outcomes for all involved.
All materials produced by the Assembly Budget Committee for this hearing are available here.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Governor’s Budget Gets Bad Reviews
The Assembly Budget Committee met today to begin its work evaluating the governor’s budget proposal to close our state’s $19.9 billion deficit. Here are just a few preliminary observations.
The governor’s budget proposal passes the buck to Congress and, once again, balances the budget of the world’s 8th largest economy on the backs of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
The governor proposes $8.5 billion in cuts, primarily K-12 education and health and human services. And, in a breathtaking act of hostage-taking, if California fails to receive $6.9 billion in federal aid, the governor would automatically cut an additional $4.6 billion from those same services. The Legislative Analyst does not believe that California would likely receive $6.9 billion from the federal government, so the governor’s budget proposal really closes the $19.9 billion deficit from nearly $13 billion in cuts to the poorest and most vulnerable among us. This is sacrifice, but it certainly isn’t shared.
The governor seeks exemption from CEQA liability for 25 new projects per year over the next four years. The projects would be identified by the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing. Which projects would qualify is undefined; potentially the administration could exempt a project as large, as controversial, as expensive, and with such far-reaching environmental impacts as the proposed Peripheral Canal.
In his trigger cuts, the governor would eliminate programs currently funded by Proposition 99, including Every Woman Counts which provides breast cancer screening for low-income women. Proposition 99, of course, is independent from the general fund so it is hard to know how this would help the state balance its budget. We have asked the Legislative Analyst to look into this further and it will be the subject of future Budget Committee hearings.
When asked by Assemblymember Swanson to identify waste in state government that could be eliminated to close the deficit, the administration pointed to the proposal to reduce state employee salary costs by another 5%. This proposal includes what the Governor euphemistically calls his “5-5-5” proposal, requiring state employees to give up 5% of their salaries, increase their pension contributions by 5% and directs departments to reduce their employee salaries by another 5%. The governor has stated publicly he will not negotiate these changes with employee bargaining units as required by law.
Despite stating emphatically that he would protect education this year, the governor’s proposal includes two back-door methods of cutting K-12 Proposition 98 funding by about $2.4 billion. In today’s hearing, his staff denied that the governor had promised to protect K-12 funding. What did he mean by saying he would protect education?
Like a bad rerun, this budget proposal would go back to the voters to seek approval to shift funds away from Proposition 63 and 10. The voters rejected this proposal in the failed May special election and the governor offers no objective evidence that the voters have changed their minds; nor does he have any backup plan if this proposal fails.
The citizens of this state have seen smoke and mirrors budgets before. This one rises above all the others in its cynicism, questionable savings, and faulty assumptions. The people of the state of California deserve better. Over the coming months, the Assembly Budget Committee will continue to analyze this proposal and all available alternatives in order to help craft a budget that meets the needs of this state and reflects the values and priorities of its residents.
The governor’s budget proposal passes the buck to Congress and, once again, balances the budget of the world’s 8th largest economy on the backs of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
The governor proposes $8.5 billion in cuts, primarily K-12 education and health and human services. And, in a breathtaking act of hostage-taking, if California fails to receive $6.9 billion in federal aid, the governor would automatically cut an additional $4.6 billion from those same services. The Legislative Analyst does not believe that California would likely receive $6.9 billion from the federal government, so the governor’s budget proposal really closes the $19.9 billion deficit from nearly $13 billion in cuts to the poorest and most vulnerable among us. This is sacrifice, but it certainly isn’t shared.
The governor seeks exemption from CEQA liability for 25 new projects per year over the next four years. The projects would be identified by the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing. Which projects would qualify is undefined; potentially the administration could exempt a project as large, as controversial, as expensive, and with such far-reaching environmental impacts as the proposed Peripheral Canal.
In his trigger cuts, the governor would eliminate programs currently funded by Proposition 99, including Every Woman Counts which provides breast cancer screening for low-income women. Proposition 99, of course, is independent from the general fund so it is hard to know how this would help the state balance its budget. We have asked the Legislative Analyst to look into this further and it will be the subject of future Budget Committee hearings.
When asked by Assemblymember Swanson to identify waste in state government that could be eliminated to close the deficit, the administration pointed to the proposal to reduce state employee salary costs by another 5%. This proposal includes what the Governor euphemistically calls his “5-5-5” proposal, requiring state employees to give up 5% of their salaries, increase their pension contributions by 5% and directs departments to reduce their employee salaries by another 5%. The governor has stated publicly he will not negotiate these changes with employee bargaining units as required by law.
Despite stating emphatically that he would protect education this year, the governor’s proposal includes two back-door methods of cutting K-12 Proposition 98 funding by about $2.4 billion. In today’s hearing, his staff denied that the governor had promised to protect K-12 funding. What did he mean by saying he would protect education?
Like a bad rerun, this budget proposal would go back to the voters to seek approval to shift funds away from Proposition 63 and 10. The voters rejected this proposal in the failed May special election and the governor offers no objective evidence that the voters have changed their minds; nor does he have any backup plan if this proposal fails.
The citizens of this state have seen smoke and mirrors budgets before. This one rises above all the others in its cynicism, questionable savings, and faulty assumptions. The people of the state of California deserve better. Over the coming months, the Assembly Budget Committee will continue to analyze this proposal and all available alternatives in order to help craft a budget that meets the needs of this state and reflects the values and priorities of its residents.
Monday, January 11, 2010
NUMMI: A Bad Omen for the Governor's Jobs Package
Editor’s note: Originally posted on January 7, this entry has been changed to clarify an issue identified by one of my readers: Toyota has not been paid $2 million by ETP. However, it continues to pursue these funds from the state.
In his State of the State address, the governor made much of his proposal which would supposedly create new jobs this year. But, it is long on corporate handouts and short on job creation.
The governor’s proposal is to commit $500 million to the existing Employment Training Program (ETP). Unfortunately for California workers, this is yet another corporate giveaway that fails to guarantee a single new job.
The fiasco at the Toyota NUMMI plant is a prime example of why the governor’s proposal is so flawed. As we all know, Toyota is closing its New United Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) plant in Fremont, resulting in a loss of 20,000 jobs with thousands of other jobs and business indirectly impacted throughout California.
Despite these huge job losses, Toyota is seeking $2 million from ETP for the training it provided to NUMMI workers last year. Translation: NUMMI workers get pink slips while Toyota pursues a big public handout. This scenario is likely to repeat itself under the governor’s so-called jobs package.
The governor’s plan gives companies money to train or retrain workers. But firms can get reimbursed for providing as little as three months of employment. That’s not a job. That’s an internship.
The governor’s plan is further based on the faulty assumption that our high unemployment rate is due to a lack of skilled workers. In fact, California is full of experienced, highly trained, and employable workers looking for jobs. Our challenge right now is that no one is hiring. The governor’s proposal tries to solve the wrong problem.
The sad thing is, the administration is dragging its feet on implementing programs already in place that would create immediate jobs. The governor’s appointed watchdog for California’s use of federal stimulus dollars, Laura Chick, just issued a scathing report criticizing the administration for failing to distribute ARRA funds which would create jobs. We also need to get the administration to move on appropriating $3 billion in infrastructure bonds on approved projects would create jobs. This would be a good start, but we need to go further.
For every $1 billion of bond funds we spend, we get approximately 18,000 new jobs. That is why I am authoring legislation to address responsible management of our general fund debt and to use existing bond funds to create real, immediate jobs for Californians.
In his State of the State address, the governor made much of his proposal which would supposedly create new jobs this year. But, it is long on corporate handouts and short on job creation.
The governor’s proposal is to commit $500 million to the existing Employment Training Program (ETP). Unfortunately for California workers, this is yet another corporate giveaway that fails to guarantee a single new job.
The fiasco at the Toyota NUMMI plant is a prime example of why the governor’s proposal is so flawed. As we all know, Toyota is closing its New United Motor Vehicle Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) plant in Fremont, resulting in a loss of 20,000 jobs with thousands of other jobs and business indirectly impacted throughout California.
Despite these huge job losses, Toyota is seeking $2 million from ETP for the training it provided to NUMMI workers last year. Translation: NUMMI workers get pink slips while Toyota pursues a big public handout. This scenario is likely to repeat itself under the governor’s so-called jobs package.
The governor’s plan gives companies money to train or retrain workers. But firms can get reimbursed for providing as little as three months of employment. That’s not a job. That’s an internship.
The governor’s plan is further based on the faulty assumption that our high unemployment rate is due to a lack of skilled workers. In fact, California is full of experienced, highly trained, and employable workers looking for jobs. Our challenge right now is that no one is hiring. The governor’s proposal tries to solve the wrong problem.
The sad thing is, the administration is dragging its feet on implementing programs already in place that would create immediate jobs. The governor’s appointed watchdog for California’s use of federal stimulus dollars, Laura Chick, just issued a scathing report criticizing the administration for failing to distribute ARRA funds which would create jobs. We also need to get the administration to move on appropriating $3 billion in infrastructure bonds on approved projects would create jobs. This would be a good start, but we need to go further.
For every $1 billion of bond funds we spend, we get approximately 18,000 new jobs. That is why I am authoring legislation to address responsible management of our general fund debt and to use existing bond funds to create real, immediate jobs for Californians.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Governor's Budget
The governor released his budget proposals today, relying mainly on large cuts to health and human services programs to balance the $19.9 billion deficit over the next 18 months.
The governor’s budget will have a body count. We are not talking about simple cuts. The Legislature’s reaction to the governor’s proposals will mean the difference between life or death for our seniors, working families, and children. This budget clearly shows the governor is not fighting for them.
Like a bad rerun we’d rather forget, the governor is making the same threats meant to shock and awe Californians. Just like last year, he proposes to eliminate life-saving and sustaining services like in-home care, CalWORKS, and Healthy Families. He is also risking our coastline for an uncertain gain in continuing his call for expanded offshore oil drilling. I was hoping to see new and fresh ideas from the governor. But we got a lot of recycled ideas that the Legislature has already rejected. There’s a difference between persistence and denial. And, there’s a lot of denial in this budget plan.
The absence of shared sacrifice is what is most upsetting in this budget. The only thing the governor is asking of the rich is to risk waiting another year to break out the champagne when their taxes get cut.
An initial Assembly Budget Committee analysis of the governor’s 2010-2011 budget proposals is available here. The committee will begin a more thorough review of the governor’s proposals next week during a January 13th hearing.
The governor’s budget will have a body count. We are not talking about simple cuts. The Legislature’s reaction to the governor’s proposals will mean the difference between life or death for our seniors, working families, and children. This budget clearly shows the governor is not fighting for them.
Like a bad rerun we’d rather forget, the governor is making the same threats meant to shock and awe Californians. Just like last year, he proposes to eliminate life-saving and sustaining services like in-home care, CalWORKS, and Healthy Families. He is also risking our coastline for an uncertain gain in continuing his call for expanded offshore oil drilling. I was hoping to see new and fresh ideas from the governor. But we got a lot of recycled ideas that the Legislature has already rejected. There’s a difference between persistence and denial. And, there’s a lot of denial in this budget plan.
The absence of shared sacrifice is what is most upsetting in this budget. The only thing the governor is asking of the rich is to risk waiting another year to break out the champagne when their taxes get cut.
An initial Assembly Budget Committee analysis of the governor’s 2010-2011 budget proposals is available here. The committee will begin a more thorough review of the governor’s proposals next week during a January 13th hearing.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Governor Promises to Protect Education
The brightest spot in the governor’s State of the State speech today was his promise not to cut education: both K-12 and higher education. I applaud the governor for prioritizing education because it is the single greatest service the state provides to enable our people to achieve the California and American dreams.
The governor said:
“…I am drawing this line. Because our future economic well-being is so dependant upon education, I will protect education funding in this budget. And, we can no longer afford to cut higher education either.” (My emphasis.)
Education funding has been decimated in recent years. Education has been cut by over $17 billion and the US/CSU systems by $550 million. Enough is enough!
What have these cuts meant to our schools and our children? Check out the Education Coalition’s report “Chronicling the Cuts” here.
While it is easy for the Governor to make this promise because K-12 education is already protected by Proposition 98, I for one, want to take the Governor at his word. No more cuts to K-12, community colleges, UC/CSU and CalGrants.
Meeting this goal remains challenging. California faces a $6.6 billion deficit in the remainder of the current budget year and a $13.3 billion deficit in 2010-2011. At $35 billion, K-12 is the largest portion of our budget. And, at $10.5 billion, higher education is the third largest portion of our budget. And we cannot protect education at the cost of all the other necessary services the state provides.
On Friday the governor releases his specific budget proposals. I look forward to seeing how the governor’s proposed budget will honor his admirable promise to protect education.
The governor said:
“…I am drawing this line. Because our future economic well-being is so dependant upon education, I will protect education funding in this budget. And, we can no longer afford to cut higher education either.” (My emphasis.)
Education funding has been decimated in recent years. Education has been cut by over $17 billion and the US/CSU systems by $550 million. Enough is enough!
What have these cuts meant to our schools and our children? Check out the Education Coalition’s report “Chronicling the Cuts” here.
While it is easy for the Governor to make this promise because K-12 education is already protected by Proposition 98, I for one, want to take the Governor at his word. No more cuts to K-12, community colleges, UC/CSU and CalGrants.
Meeting this goal remains challenging. California faces a $6.6 billion deficit in the remainder of the current budget year and a $13.3 billion deficit in 2010-2011. At $35 billion, K-12 is the largest portion of our budget. And, at $10.5 billion, higher education is the third largest portion of our budget. And we cannot protect education at the cost of all the other necessary services the state provides.
On Friday the governor releases his specific budget proposals. I look forward to seeing how the governor’s proposed budget will honor his admirable promise to protect education.
The Pig and the Pony
In his final State of the State speech, the governor told a story about his pig and his pony teaming up to open a canister of dog food.
My question is, doesn’t the governor feed his pets? Why are they left to fend for themselves?
All kidding aside, when the governor reveals his budget proposals on Friday will he leave Californians to fend for themselves by destroying basic services that create our quality of life? We’ll soon see.
My question is, doesn’t the governor feed his pets? Why are they left to fend for themselves?
All kidding aside, when the governor reveals his budget proposals on Friday will he leave Californians to fend for themselves by destroying basic services that create our quality of life? We’ll soon see.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
New Year Wishes for California
As we prepare for the Christmas holiday and for the New Year, it is also time to consider wishes for our collective future. Here is my number one holiday wish—JOBS.
California’s unemployment rate remains at an unacceptable 12.3 percent. Given our fiscal problems, we need the federal government to help jump-start our economy by investing in California infrastructure. Some economists estimate that for every $1 billion dollars of bond funding we invest in infrastructure, we get over 18,000 jobs.
But our state is saddled with massive debts of the past—which results in us having lower bond ratings than the Philippines and Mexico and in huge debt service costs which negatively impact our general fund. Even though we have ample bond funding that has been approved by the voters, we can’t issue the bonds because we are already overwhelmed with debt. Therefore, we need the federal government’s help to get Californians back to work. We can’t do it alone.
The federal government can do many things to help. It can guarantee our debt at little or no cost to the federal treasury. In fact, the Speaker and I went to Washington earlier this year to request such assistance and its time to renew our efforts. The federal government can provide us stimulus funds which we can leverage through issuing bonds. It can assist us with paying off bonds that create jobs. Or, it can provide us direct, cash assistance to create jobs.
Such assistance should not be considered a gift. It is in our country’s best interests to invest in California. California is getting historic low prices on public works and infrastructure projects—the construction industry needs work and competition is fierce. California has over $300 billion in infrastructure improvements we need to make and NOW is the best time to make that investment. We have bonds that have been approved by voters but which we are economically unable to issue because we can’t pay even the debt service in the short-term. Help us fix our infrastructure problems now, when we are getting such a good deal on the investment and kick-start our economy in the process.
In addition, California is a donor state. In other words, the money we send to the US Treasury goes to help other states. If the California economy crashes, so will economies in other states. Give us the jobs and tools to get ourselves back to economic health and we will make sure the rest of America reaps the dividends of our growth and innovation for years to come.
Now that’s change we can all believe in for the New Year.
California’s unemployment rate remains at an unacceptable 12.3 percent. Given our fiscal problems, we need the federal government to help jump-start our economy by investing in California infrastructure. Some economists estimate that for every $1 billion dollars of bond funding we invest in infrastructure, we get over 18,000 jobs.
But our state is saddled with massive debts of the past—which results in us having lower bond ratings than the Philippines and Mexico and in huge debt service costs which negatively impact our general fund. Even though we have ample bond funding that has been approved by the voters, we can’t issue the bonds because we are already overwhelmed with debt. Therefore, we need the federal government’s help to get Californians back to work. We can’t do it alone.
The federal government can do many things to help. It can guarantee our debt at little or no cost to the federal treasury. In fact, the Speaker and I went to Washington earlier this year to request such assistance and its time to renew our efforts. The federal government can provide us stimulus funds which we can leverage through issuing bonds. It can assist us with paying off bonds that create jobs. Or, it can provide us direct, cash assistance to create jobs.
Such assistance should not be considered a gift. It is in our country’s best interests to invest in California. California is getting historic low prices on public works and infrastructure projects—the construction industry needs work and competition is fierce. California has over $300 billion in infrastructure improvements we need to make and NOW is the best time to make that investment. We have bonds that have been approved by voters but which we are economically unable to issue because we can’t pay even the debt service in the short-term. Help us fix our infrastructure problems now, when we are getting such a good deal on the investment and kick-start our economy in the process.
In addition, California is a donor state. In other words, the money we send to the US Treasury goes to help other states. If the California economy crashes, so will economies in other states. Give us the jobs and tools to get ourselves back to economic health and we will make sure the rest of America reaps the dividends of our growth and innovation for years to come.
Now that’s change we can all believe in for the New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
