California balances budget on backs of the poor and disabled

[Prism]

I work in social services in the Bay Area, and yesterday I started receiving some calls from panicked elderly and disabled individuals I had worked with in the past. Apparently, the state sent out letters this week announcing a cut in supportive services, effective July 1st.

Back in January, politicians in Sacramento claimed publicly that not only would they stop cuts to these social services, they were going to increase the budget:

On the social services front, Brown's administration proposes $19.5
billion for the Department of Social Services, an increase of $577.4 million from last fiscal year's final budget. That amount allows for new spending on programs to connect welfare recipients with work, supports that have dropped off in recent budget cycles, as well as small increases in child-care funding for the working poor. The state is expecting to serve 572,000 families on its CalWORKS program in 2013 and 2014.

The budget blueprint also provides for slight increases in funding for another previously battered program -- In-Home Supportive Services -- which provides domestic-based care and transportation for more than 400,000 low-income aged, blind, and disabled residents.

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_22349210/californias-governor-proposes-no-significant-cuts-social-services

Sounds awesome, right? Positively Democratic. Hooray!

The reality:

The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services yesterday approved the settlement over cuts to In-Home Supportive Services. The agreement reduces the severity of the cut from the original 20% proposal to its current 8% cutback.

. . .

The original 20% IHSS cuts were triggered by lower-than-projected budget numbers at the end of 2011. A lawsuit filed by Service Employees International Union and Disability Rights California challenged the trigger reduction.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to halt it. Last month, the two sides worked out a compromise settlement.

The agreement calls for an 8% cut in service hours this year, and a 7% cut in hours next year. It affects about 370,000 Californians, mostly seniors, who receive IHSS care.

http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2013/4/legislature-approves-ihss-settlement.aspx

Paralyzed in your home and reliant on the county to provide your basic living needs? Meh. You'll make do.

Yeah, that's how I wanted this week to start out. Voice mail full of the disabled freaking out because our politicians' priorities are all fucked up. Nice job, Sacramento.

[ruffburr]

1. What happened to the surplus funds?-

[hfojvt]

3. the surplus was "only" $1-4 billion

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/05/25/large-budget-surplus-poses-problems-for-california/THDjldkdBetoHrlOJGKKdO/story.html

You see he proposed a $19 billion increase (which still worked out to a cut).

That was in large part how they got the surplus, by cutting this kind of spending.

[KamaAina]

20. Most of it went to schools

the rest to debt service. A few crumbs for CalWORKS and Denti-Cal. Nothing for people with disabilities. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. You sound surprised.

I lived in SoCal longer than anyplace else and still consider LA my adopted hometown, but I learned that there is no bad idea that Sacramento won't fight to the death to get through, and no good idea that they couldn't turn into a nightmare.

Hell, even after pushing the state to the very brink of bankruptcy, twice, they won't even discuss getting rid of prop 13. A fact for which ConAgra doesn't even show proper appreciation.

[Prism]

4. I'd go so far as to say they mislead the recipients

There had been a small cut last year (I believe the first half of the 8%). However, they sent out letters saying that further cuts would not be happening. And then Sacramento deliberately put out assurances the program was fine.

The letters received yesterday were the first time a lot of these elderly and disabled learned about further cuts coming.

They let people know on June 18th that cuts begin on July 1st.

The workers are also getting shafted. This is an hours reduction for them. They're not exactly making out like gang busters. I think the highest county wage in CA is $11.50 for the urban areas and lower in rural, less populated counties. They haven't seen a wage increase in at least four years. Finding quality caregivers is a challenge, because the people with experience and certifications will not work for that wage. I've seen a lot of elderly and disabled scrounging for students and low to no experience workers on craigslist. Which is fine as far as it goes, but turnover is high, and the quality of care is not always what you would want it to be.

The system's a mess right now.

But at least they made a pretty press release in January.

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. I'm so sorry for your situation. I know how hard it is to get any assistance in that state.

Something you seem to have overlooked is the biggest single reason CA is so screwed is prop 13, it created the nightmare you have to deal with by choking off the state's revenue chief stream and dumping it's expenses on everybody in the lower half of the economic hierarchy.

It makes no difference to you now, I completely understand that, but you should be aware of how it got this way and who benefits from it being as it is.

The best education system in the nation was gutted. The model of effective civil service was wiped out. One of the best infrastructures in the country is crumbling. All this and so much more so that Con Agra and a handful of other huge corporations could avoid paying for the very things that allow them to exist.

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. Several reasons. First you are simply assuming something for which there is little evidence.

That being that your property taxes would be much higher than they currently are. Unless you owned your home prior to 1979, you are already paying a higher tax.

Your property valuation, that determines your property tax has almost nothing to do with sale price. Look at your tax bill. Do you think you could possibly buy your house for the amount it's valued at for tax purposes?

Worst of all: As you (hopefully) know prop 13 only allows property taxes to be "adjusted" (raised) on transfer of ownership. When you bought your house, your property tax was almost certainly higher than that which the previous owners paid. There are a very, very few exceptions to this, but they are insignificant in the overall picture.

Even if you buy your house and never sell it, you will eventually die and the tax will go up. So prop 13 doesn't stop property taxes from rising for the human beings that live there.

But here's the real reason for, and significant effect of prop 13. Corporations. They never die and they very rarely sell real property. Ever drive around outside Sacramento? See those thousands and thousands of acres of rice? See the names and logos displayed on the equipment and buildings? Those companies are today paying exactly the same tax that they paid in 1979 or whatever year they bought that land.

Same thing all over the state. The often referenced family farm? Unless they were clever enough to incorporate and were big enough to meet the requirements, their taxes went up just like those on your house. The biggest single reason that so many have gone under over the years. Grandpa dies and the farm didn't make enough to meet, or qualify for the tax break that Dole, Foster Farms, Sunway, Blue Diamond, etc. enjoy. They couldn't pay the bill and so they sold or lost the land.

So what's the result? Your property taxes stayed relatively low, but somebody has to pay the freight, so it's still you. Your sales taxes have shot up. You are subject to a blizzard of outrageous fees (that as long as they don't call them taxes are free to rise as high as the market will bear). You pay the difference every day and the poorer you are, the more those differences represent as a total of your income and expenses.

Prop 13 is a huge giveaway to huge corporations and the bills they aren't paying are transferred to you and all of the flesh and blood human beings that live there.

Consider this the next time you're bouncing down a crumbling road, being served by a high school graduate that can't make change, read a menu, or comprehend a news article written at an 8th grade level, or when you drink a glass of tap water that makes you gag. How high a price are you willing to pay for the illusion of saving a few bucks on what is probably the lowest bill you pay all year?

[Xithras]

18. Sorry, but that is not quite correct.

Proposition 13 does fix the maximum property tax at 1% of the properties valuation, but it allows that base property valuation to be increased in response to inflation and market conditions, up to a maximum of 2% per year.

Excepting a handful of people who have bought homes in the declining market these past few years, I don't know ANY homeowners who are paying the same taxes that they paid when they bought their homes. My taxes (and everyone elses in California) have gone down the last couple of years because of the plunge in valuations, but aside from this one blip my property taxes have gone up every single year for the past 14 years that I've been a homeowner.

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. Which in no way contradicts the point. Prop 13 has had a devastating effect on California

for over 30 years now, turning what was once the best state in the country into a nightmare of predatory capitalism with the main beneficiaries being major corporations commercial interests, and the rich.

This is a prime example of why I and so many others reluctantly left that state. The issue raised in the OP points out just how high a price you pay to give the rich a huge payday at the expense of everybody else. You gave up even trying to actually fix a problem in favor of an illusion.

[Prism]

10. If you don't mind my asking

What county do you live in?

[forestpath]

7. Hurting the vulnerable is the Democratic Party's default position these days.

[azurnoir]

12. Hurting the vulnerable was in part how a second term Democratic Presidency was won in 1996

that it continues to this day should be no surprise

[forestpath]

13. Where did I say I was surprised?

[azurnoir]

15. you didn't it was the "these days" part

seems "these days" have been going on for quite some time, nearly 20 years

[Orrex]

8. Why should California be any different from the rest of the world?

The world economy has run on actual and de facto slave labor for centuries, and the poor are the first ones thrown into the machinery in each and every case.

It would be nice if California were different, but...

[alp227]

11. But but but...those people can just rely on *private chaaaaarity*.

Or their OWN faaaaaaamily members can take time off their jobs and heeeeeeeeelp their ellllllllders. It's sure a hell of a lot better than raising MYYYYYY taxes to support those non-working, non-productive "DISAAAAABLED" people, right? Why need government when there are FOOOOOOD PANTRIES, and the FREE MAAAAARKET has decided to build nursing homes? </libertarian sarcasm>

And I wonder how many Republicans even voted for this budget? Looks like the Democrats are trying to pander to those who complain about CA gov being too bloated.

[Prism]

14. I know. That pisses me off to no end.

Most of the people on supportive service either don't have family or their families washed their hands of them.

If they're on SSI (and many are), they're disqualified from food stamps.

We'll not even discuss the happy fun times that is a section 8 waiting list. The last figure to cross my desk was three years for San Francisco county!

But the free market and private charity will sort that right out.

Ass. Holes.

Now, doctors are even getting squirrely about Medi-Cal. It'll be the next big headache. I know that shitstorm is in the forecast.

[KamaAina]

21. Only three years?

Down here in Santa Clara County, the list itself has been closed for six years!

[KamaAina]

22. This would make a nice cross-post to the California forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1040

[KamaAina]

23. I am convinced the IHSS agreement should be struck down by the court

The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services yesterday approved the settlement over cuts to In-Home Supportive Services. The agreement reduces the severity of the cut from the original 20% proposal to its current 8% cutback.

And the settlement was reached just before the state suddenly announced it had a $4 billion surplus (or $2.4 billion or whatever) rather than a $1 billion deficit. In other words, the state misrepresented its financial situation to the plaintiffs in hopes of bullying them into accepting cuts as part of a settlement. Which they did. Judges tend to take a dim view of such conduct.

[Prism]

24. Citing 8% is also dishonest.

Media keep touting it's only an 8% cut, but it's followed by a 7% cut next year. That's roughly 14.5% in cuts. Some settlement, eh? Take a huge chunk out and then throw them back a crumb. Hooray, we compromised!

These ratfuckers. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the union right now. I have no idea what they were thinking, but workers are furious.

[KamaAina]

25. Are you sure about that?!

It was my understanding that the 7% figure meant that 1% of the 8% cut would be restored next year. If this is not the case, all hell is about to break loose. Have you heard of the Berkeley disability listserv? It would go thermonuclear if this happened. Do you have a link for this?

[Prism]

26. Am I misreading?

I interpreted it to mean 7% on top of the 8%. What you're saying would be far more palatable.

I hope how you're reading it is the case. I heard from some IHSS workers who interpreted it as I did. It'd be awesome if we're mistaken. Well, it's be less sucky at least.

[KamaAina]

27. Disability Rights California says you are

http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/pubs/552401.pdf

Is this cut permanent?

No. The 8% cut will last for one year. Around the middle of next year
(2014) the cut will go down to 7% total. Around the middle of the year
after that (2015), the cut is supposed to end.

but if there are other people out there who believe that, that needs to be addressed. "Perception is reality."

[Prism]

28. Thank you for this.

I'll certainly let others know. I had some recipients who were very frightened by the letters they received. Hopefully this will ease their minds somewhat.