Sacramento Bee: Schwarzenegger budget would eliminate welfare

[marmar]

Schwarzenegger budget would eliminate welfare

By Kevin Yamamura
[e-mail]

Published: Friday, May. 14, 2010 - 1:06 pm
Last Modified: Friday, May. 14, 2010 - 1:55 pm


Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked lawmakers Friday to eliminate the state's welfare program starting in October and dramatically scale back in-home care for the elderly and disabled as part of his May budget revision to close a $19.1 billion deficit.

The Republican governor also proposed cuts to state worker compensation. Besides asking for a 5 percent pay cut, 5 percent payroll cap and 5 percent increased pension contribution, Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting one day per month of pay in exchange for leave credit.

The proposal would affect all state workers under the governor's authority, regardless of whether they are general fund or special fund employees. Employees would not be able to cash out any of this unused leave credit when they leave state service. The plan would replace the three-day-a-month furloughs, which are due to end June 30.

Schwarzenegger said the sour economy, the failure of the Legislature to make cuts he proposed in January and the federal government's failure to come up with about $7 billion leaves policymakers with no choice but to make deep cuts. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/14/2751461/schwarzenegger-budget-would-eliminate.html#ixzz0nwNnm9bL

[skeptical cynic]

1. Stop the wars!

I just figured out something better we can spend our money on!!!

[customerserviceguy]

10. Just curious

which wars does California spend its money on?

[MattBaggins]

17. All of them?

Stop spending zillions of dollars to kill furriners and use it for Federal infrastructure which in turn frees up States monies.

[Vinca]

2. What, exactly, is a disabled person supposed to do if their care giver

comes only 3 times a week instead of 7? Are people who need welfare supposed to magically find homes, jobs and a reliable source of food? It seems the weakest in our society are easy pickings for politicians because they don't dare raise taxes on their wealthy friends or piss off the big corporations that write them checks. Better to let grandma die earlier than she planned.

[WinkyDink]

5. Yes. The answer IS "die."

[Mojeoux]

19. He's a lame duck! Can't he go out with dignity?

Cut corporate welfare!!!!

[Politicalboi]

6. Well he did give them

Till October. :sarcasm:

[indepat]

12. Now, now, welfare to the wealthy and large corporations, no matter in what form, is off the table

even though that welfare, no matter how labeled, is still welfare and smells to high heaven. :-)

[Hannah Bell]

29. they're supposed to DIE, get with the program. the banksters MUST BE PAID.

IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE UNIVERSE.

[Shallah Kali]

66. Where are the right to life people when shit like this happens?

[Tumbulu]

3. We need majority rule back in California so that taxes can be raised.

The wrong wing 1/3 minority has strangled us.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. You mean higher than they are now? No thanks.

The state employs 210,000 people fulltime. I'd let some of them go before I raised taxes.

[Tumbulu]

24. Tell me who you would like to lay off

exactly who.

I want a viable government here in my state. I want teachers at the schools, I want shelters for abused women and children, I want state parks. I want civilization.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. Tell me whose taxes you'd raise.

I'd lay off anyone making over $100K, for openers. Or cut their pay way back. If they can do better in the private sector, fuck 'em, go do it. I'd end the practice of double-dipping. I'd cut back on lifetime benefits for retired state workers. I'd increase property taxes on businesses. Just for openers.

[crikkett]

35. They can raise plenty of taxes through legalized marijuana.

It's on the ballot this November, and I bet that this move will bolster support for the measure.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

52. because people are going to pay taxes on weed...

Legalization doesn't replace the existing "supply chain" if you will,

[crikkett]

72. Wanna bet?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

77. have you ever lived near an indian reservation?

People seem all too happy to go out of their way to buy tax-free cigarettes.

[crikkett]

84. it's not the same

You didn't say whether you are game to place a friendly wager on whether or not people would pay tax on legalized marijuana. PM me if so.

PS I don't bet for money.

[Tumbulu]

56. I would raise the tax on the top income bracket

and I would take the property tax limits off of every property that is not the person's primary residence.

The state is down to bare bones and cutting services for the needy is bad policy.

[slackmaster]

76. Earningsover $44,055 are already taxed at 9.55%

There is one higher bracket - 10.55% on earnings over $1 million. But very few people actually pay that.

...cutting services for the needy is bad policy.

Raising taxes in a recession is bad policy too.

[Tumbulu]

81. honestly- what are you doing on DU?

Give me a break, anyone making over a million can pay more. In fact anyone making over $250 k should pay more. it is that simple.

Cutting services for the needy will raise the crime rate about 16 yrs for now if not sooner- is that what you people want?

[slackmaster]

83. I'm all for raising the income tax on the $1 million plus people, however

It wouldn't be nearly enough to fix the problem.

Cutting services for the needy will raise the crime rate about 16 yrs for now if not sooner- is that what you people want?

I'm not sure what you mean by "you people" in this context, but I've never supported cutting services for the needy.

[shanti]

61. the unions

do you hate them as well?

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. WTF does that have to do with anything?

[Hannah Bell]

30. shocking!! the state employs .5% of its population to run the state & all its facilities,

such as public parks, state universities, & such.

my god, such waste!

private corporations could take over all that!

then you could pay them twice as much!

california's taxes are in the middle range of all the states, & the billionaires in california could pay off its entire debt without breaking a sweat.

the head of intel got a million dollar personal exemption, i heard.

nice to have friends in high places, wouldn't want to make him go without caviar.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. Bullshit. See link.

California taxes are pretty substantial as it is. Feel free to dispute the source, as usual.

[Hannah Bell]

39. you told me california has 210,000 employees, i did the math.

i don't need to look at the right-wing tax founation's questionable research: they're combining state AND LOCAL taxes.

Local taxes aren't state taxes.

[Dreamer Tatum]

41. Yup...when the facts are against you, assail the source

Typical Hannah Bell.

The state has a $20 billion deficit PER YEAR. ANNUALLY.

How do you propose to bridge that gap without spending less? Oh, that's right - you don't live in CA. Not your problem.

[Hannah Bell]

42. you're complaining about state taxes & citing a source that combines state & local taxes.

wtf?

you told me the state had 210,000 employees. it's .5% of the state population. i don't see the big shocker.

whatever, dude.

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. Yeah, it does have that many, and there should be fewer.

And CA taxes are demonstrably not low. In fact, in many instances they are rather high.

Ergo, the state spends too much fucking money.

But whatever, dude.

[Hannah Bell]

57. "there should be fewer" -- why?

"in many instances they're rather high"

which instances? compared to what? whose taxes, exactly?

[Dreamer Tatum]

59. CA marginal income tax rate is 9.3% at $44K AGI

So please spare me. Go peddle your crap somewhere else. You don't even live in CA, and the only solution I've ever
seen you propose is confiscating the wealth of rich people. As though that's even LEGAL. Your pie is in the sky; mine is in the cupboard.

[NuttyFluffers]

27. exactly. no entity with any sort of sovereignty hamstrings itself this much and survives

my Policy professor, when i was overseas, was appalled at the unbelievable stupidity that we put such a crazy restriction into our constitution. when she found out it was put to the vote by general electorate proposition she was struck dumb. it took her minutes to recover and say it was the stupidest policy decision she has ever heard. i agreed with her, but she went on to explain how out-of-step and lunatic such a policy is and why it has never been attempted before by any modern extant example she can recall. it's doomed to failure and that's exactly what the Republicans want.

to think there are people here that short-sighted that they cannot tell a Shock Doctrine coup d'etat (this time literally just a 'state') from years away, and trying to defend this garbage proposition of 2/3 necessary to raise taxes, shows you how much DU has changed. forget the Democratic big tent, the tarp blew away -- now we are awash in airheads who are more vapid doctrinaire opinion than policy knowledge or common sense. can be in the middle of being robbed blind, but will defend to the death the robber's right to blindfold and steal from them...

c'est la vie.

[slackmaster]

34. Your professor obviously is not aware of the conditions that led to Proposition 13

I remember it well. I voted for it in 1978, and if I had to make a choice now I'd vote for it again.

But it's not that simple, there is middle ground. The ease with which commercial property can be transferred from one entity to another without triggering a reassessment is a serious problem.

[Johonny]

38. Yeah crazy I got mine people voted in terrible law over tax paranoia

That what happened in 1978. Stop trying to pretend otherwise because no one buys this Kool aide here. The Budget boogey man is coming run for the hills.

[slackmaster]

43. IT WAS NOT "TAX PARANOA"! My parents' house got reassessed six times in eight years

Their property tax went up by almost 500% in eight years. In 1977 they were paying almost as much in property tax as they were on mortgage principle and interest.

How is a family supposed to run a budget when you have no way to predict what your tax burden is going to be year after year?

The counties had way too much leeway in reassessing property. I knew people who were on fixed incomes and came close to losing their homes because of unrestrained property tax hikes.

[Bennyboy]

45. True but..

nothing else froze at 1978 levels. Not wages, energy, retirements, heathcare etc.

CA needs to fix prop 13, maybe not go back to the situation described above, but still property taxes need to be raised...

a TYPICAL SITUATION IS THIS. Guy owns 1000 sq ft house. He is taxed under prop 13 for that 1000 sq ft home. He then does a "one wall" remodel and increases the homes size by 5000 sq ft. And is still taxed on 1978 levels for a 1000 sq ft home instead of a 5000 sq ft home...

Prop 13 needs to be redone.

Corporate welfare needs to end.

The bubble is about to burst in CA with the commercial real estate market about to burst.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. It was a bad idea then and still is

13 was like amputating a leg because you needed to trim a toenail.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

53. Without proposition 13 there is no way I could have remained in California

I had some very, very lean years during the real estate bubble, taxes on the "market value" of my house would have wiped me out.

[NuttyFluffers]

55. wrong proposition. i'm talking about the recent prop related @ 2/3 req. to raise taxes.

i'm forgetting the number right now. but i remember warning bout it because it was on the ballot in the past ten years, and i remember voting against it. property taxes are local (even tough prop 13 has a 2/3rds clause) and shouldn't be causing issues in state budget like lately. there was something recent which really made it impossible to raise taxes w/o the minority help.

crap, now i have to go digging through old props to find what i'm talking about....

edit: A-ha! i found it. it's prop 58 from 2004 elections (using prop 57 -- the $ to keep CA solvent from the Enron scandal -- as hostage) that was the centerpiece to finally kick in that booby trap of a clause in prop 13 from 1978 elections. prop 13's 2/3 majority necessary for raising taxes is really, really bad, but the buck could be passed as long as borrowing (bond issuance) and permission to waive imbalanced budgets allowed the time bomb to stay ticking. when prop 58 came in, expenditure (including payment on past debt) could not exceed revenue, which meant the bomb now had to go off.

that was it, it's the prop 13 lure for residential property taxes, but really giving a freebie to commercial property taxes, and leaving a poison pill time bomb to go off. because of political ignorance and apathy, prop 13's devastation to the state coffers (due to 2/3rds req.) could not be removed -- only circumvented by heavy borrowing and offsetting bills. so a huge amount of debt and trouble accrued in the wake, and prop 58 was the trigger mechanism to pop the poison pill.

gawd, i remember trying to warn people that Arnold Schwarzenegger's prop 57 & 58 is an absolute disaster in the making. it would finally make the bomb embedded in prop 13 go off. which would explain why CA was able to survive with prop 13 for over 20+ years, but after 2004's prop 58 implodes within Arnold's governorship.

[shanti]

62. exactly

remove the corporate loophole, the rest can stay. as long as GAS is in office, nothing will happen there.

[Dreamer Tatum]

36. CA is middle-of-the-road in property tax receipts, despite Prop 13

I really wish people would get over the claim that taxes are low in CA. They aren't.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Not for you who 'flip' and move every week

for people who hold on to things, taxes are a dream situation. Advantage- people with more money.

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. Your comment makes no sense nt

[WinkyDink]

4. What a b*****d. Hurt the worst-off, the infirm, and the elderly, in this state of billionaires.

RAISE THE G-D TAXES ON THE RICH. LIKE YOURSELF AND YOUR WIFE.

[Mojeoux]

18. Here here!!

Massive agreement!

[EFerrari]

26. He always goes after the people who would have the hardest time

getting into their cars and protesting his @ss in Sacto.

[Lyric]

7. My god...think of all the impoverished children in California.

Does anyone here REALLY think that churches are going to step forward and fill that need?? Not effing likely, and even the ones that DO will only offer temporary help with a thousand moralizing "strings" attached, which isn't even close to enough to solve the problem.

Lord have mercy on the poor children of California.

:(

[Starry Messenger]

9. He's the biggest f*ckstick ever.

What jobs are people supposed to be getting if you eliminate welfare you tool? God reading the comments on that article almost made me pop a blood vessel.

[customerserviceguy]

11. This is just part of a game that gets played in every state government

in the country. No governor can pass a budget without the consent of the legislature. Period.

Maybe he's trying to say: "If we don't find either a way to raise taxes (that doesn't make people move out of CA) or other things to cut instead, then this is what your state budget could look like."

[political_Dem]

13. Reading those comments in The Bee made my head spin. They were pretty disgusting.

It's well known that Schwartzie is a place-holder who doesn't know anything about governing. And this is one of the lowest things he could have possibly done.

However, if I read of someone using the pejorative "illegals" again, I'll just scream. It is derogatory.

Doesn't anyone realize that the word "illegal" is just another racially charged epithet just like other racial slurs?


:thumbsdown:

[dana_b]

15. they don't care

it's come to the point where some think it's acceptable to insult people that they believe are below them - especially brown people with accents!

[nomorenomore08]

79. "It's come to the point"? Not really.

Same as it ever was, more like... :shrug:

[dana_b]

14. a sample of the comments there:

"Make the cuts in social programs as severe as possible so as to drive as many poor and sickly people as possible out of the state or to early graves. By doing so those who remain can enjoy a better overall quality of life with lower taxes."

S/he was serious and others actually recommended the comment.

I guess as a state worker who has a workman's comp case and is currently on disability I should be shaking in my boots but I am more concerned with the welfare system. What will those families do? Live in the parks that were closed? f*** Ahnuld!

[bobbolink]

21. After a while, the hate gets you down.

I have said earlier today that since they want to cut off people on disability (and this is federal), they should be honest about their desire to get rid of us, and provide us with the means for a peaceful exit.

[Hannah Bell]

31. it really does. these are americans? they sound like nazis to me.

[elehhhhna]

80. No! Arnold's implements Eugenics program via budget policy?

sounds like it.

True colors, Arnold?

[Brother Buzz]

16. This budget will be rejected by the legislature. Voucher follies resume in June

[Duer 157099]

20. Like the people are not already distressed enough

That's ok, go ahead and push them right up against the wall, hold the baton against their throats and see what happens.

Some will suicide themselves, but some will take others with them before doing so.

It's what the desperate do. So yeah, go ahead and create MORE desperate people in this state.

Swell.

[bobbolink]

22. "So yeah, go ahead and create MORE desperate people in this state."

I don't think they need to be urged to do so. I think they are on automatic.

The question is... why isn't there some real outrage on this? Why are we alone?

[Rex]

23. So will that end corporate welfare as well or just aid to poor people?

Like I have to ask.

[Hannah Bell]

32. lol. Mr. Intel got his property tax break.

[Hannah Bell]

28. dust bowl here we come. "move on, move on, no work here!"

[bobbolink]

44. .

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HemMnHs7SCg/SXj34Q60tMI/AAAAAAAAACo/NP_CkYcFKPI/S1600-R/wide+banner.jpg

[Rage for Order]

69. We should put that sign up on our border with Mexico

If we can use it as it relates to American citizens, certainly we can employ the same philosophy when it comes to illegals.

[bobbolink]

74. You're not going to drag me into your "illegals" rant.

Isn't it interesting that you could have chosen to write something compassionate about the people on the streets who are out of jobs and out of resources.

But, instead, you chose to rant on "illegals".

:( byebye

[laughingliberal]

37. Wonder how far that $9 billion lawsuit against Enron would have gone?

You remember, Arnie. The lawsuit you shit canned soon after being elected?

[Hannah Bell]

58. +100. down the memory hole.

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. Less than half of one year's deficit, or can't you do arithmetic?

Every solution I've EVER seen to CA's problems involves a distraction or something completely impractical or illegal.

[laughingliberal]

67. Still $9 billion they don't have right now. And the article cites the following:

the failure of the Legislature to make cuts he proposed in January and the federal government's failure to come up with about $7 billion leaves policymakers with no choice but to make deep cuts. ..........(more)

Looks to me as if $9 billion would would help the immediate problem.

[Dreamer Tatum]

68. Then anyone carping about CA deficits should stipulate that Enron

caused a small portion of the current systemic crisis.

$20 billion deficit EVERY YEAR. Not this year: EVERY year.

[shanti]

64. don't forget the vehicle licensing fee

fiasco. i wonder where that money went...

[Dappleganger]

40. It won't take long for the state to figure out how BAD of an idea it is to cut off your nose

to spite your face.

[Ramulux]

46. Such a fucking terrible idea

What amazes me the most whenever I hear about republicans attempting to destroy welfare programs, is that they have obviously put no thought into what these people who rely on these services for SURVIVAL are going to do once they are ended.

I'll tell you what they are going to do, they are going to become criminals. You take away someone's livelihood and offer them no way to pay for food and housing, and they are going to turn to crime to pay the bills.

Seriously, what else are they going to do? Are you going to starve to death to prove some moral point or are you going to get off your ass and find a way to feed your children in whatever way possible?

The worst part is that this a serious domestic security issue, I dont want my poor neighbors having to sell drugs and rob markets to stay alive, that effects my safety and the safety of everyone around me.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

51. It's the prison-industrial complex, making money off of crime.

Angela Davis writes about this.

Take away jobs, desperate people turn to crime, and end up in privatized prisons. Just like the military-industrial complex, with slave labor.

[mvd]

73. It's just unbelievable

Things like this are why I strongly support the President's reelection despite my reservations with him. Republicans ALWAYS balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor. They won't make the rich give their share in tough economic times, or fix tax loopholes. Sometimes they even indirectly raise taxes on the middle class and poor (like the property taxes in NJ.)

Dems HAVE to challange Gov. S on this.

[Change Happens]

54. When does he leave office?

[shanti]

65. not a day too soon!

november is when he is booted out.

[4dsc]

70. Prop 13 is kicking their ass..

Without Prop 13, I don't think they would be having such a hard time in California IMHO.

[slackmaster]

71. It's only been the law of of the land in California for 32 years

Give them a break. They're slow learners, but sooner or later they'll figure out how to run the state with those well-understood constraints.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

78. Without proposition 13 I would have been out on my ass

My house being reaccessed at bubble prices would have run me out of the state, proposition 13 protects people who first and foremost intend to LIVE in their home rather than FLIP it from the irrational California real estate market.

The fact my house might have been worth $800,000 - which is ridiculous did nothing for me since I neither intended to sell it or take equity out of it.

[Karenina]

75. Social dissolution coming soon to a theater near you. n/t

[Juche]

82. Single payer health care would save California $343.6 billion over 10 years

http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2669

February 2005: California

California could save $344 billion over 10 years with single payer

A study by the Lewin Group, finds that singlepayer would save California $343.6 billion in health care costs over the next 10 years, mainly by cutting administration and using bulk purchases of drugs and medical equipment.

The bill’s author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, said the report “demonstrates that we can do it. We need the will to do it. It makes insurance affordable for everybody.”

Lewin Group Report: The Health Care for All Californians Act: Cost and Economic Impacts Analysis
January 19, 2005

Fact Sheet

* The Lewin report, prepared by an independent firm with 18 years of experience in healthcare cost analysis, affirms that we can create a fiscally sound, reliable state insurance plan that covers all Californians and controls health cost inflation.

* The Lewin report shows that all California residents can have affordable health insurance; and that, on average, individuals, families, businesses and the state of California, all of whom are now burdened with rising insurance costs, will save money.

* In February, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-23) will introduce the California Health Insurance Reliability Act (CHIRA), based on these findings. CHIRA, based on the Lewin Report model will insure every Californian and allow everyone to choose his or her own doctor.

Savings Overall

The Lewin report model would achieve universal coverage while actually reducing total health spending for California by about $8 billion in the first year alone. Savings would be realized in two ways:

1. The Act would replace the current system of multiple public and private insurers with a single, reliable insurance plan. This saves about $20 billion in administrative costs.

2. California would buy prescription drugs and durable medical equipment (e.g., wheelchairs) in bulk and save about $5.2 billion.

Savings for State and Local Governments

* In addition, state and local governments would save about $900 million, in the first year, in spending for health benefits provided to state and local government workers and retirees.

* Aggregate savings to state and local governments from 2006 to 2015 would be about $43.8 billion.
Savings for Businesses

* Employers who currently offer health benefits would realize average savings of 16% compared to the current system.

Savings for families

* Average family spending for health care is estimated to decline to about $2,448 per family under the Act in 2006, which is an average savings of about $340 per family.

* Families with under $150,000 in annual income would, on average, see savings ranging between $600 and $3,000 per family under the program in 2006.

Cost Controls

* By 2015, health spending in California under the Act would be about $68.9 billion less than currently projected. Total savings over the 2006 through 2015 period would be $343.6 billion.

* Savings to state and local governments over this ten-year period would be about $43.8 billion.

Comprehensive Benefits

* The Lewin Report assumes an insurance plan that covers medical, dental and vision care; prescription drug; emergency room services, surgical and recuperative care; orthodontia; mental health care and drug rehabilitation; immunizations; emergency and other necessary transportation; laboratory and other diagnostic services; adult day care; all necessary translation and interpretation; chiropractic care, acupuncture, case management and skilled nursing care.

Efficiencies

* The Lewin Report shows that efficiencies in the system make these superior benefits available while generating savings.

Freedom to Choose

*The Lewin Report model assumes the consumer’s freedom to choose his or her own care providers. This means that each Californian will be free to change jobs, start a family, start a business, continue education and or change residences, secure in the knowledge that his or her relationships with trusted caregivers will be secure.

For more information please go to the below link:
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/kuehl/