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.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)