What's new w/Cali's social contract
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 06-07-2009 - 8:57pm |
this week?
In my county there is a 5 year waiting list for Federally assisted housing. In my mothers county an estimated 2 year list (I was looking for my parents last year.) The in home services grant they get is $700 a month. My dad is pretty near death and mom just finished radiation treaments (Thank God for medi-care.) But her social security will diminish when he dies. She actually used to be one of those people that thought people only ended up in their position because they were slackers. She "had hers" and "would never be in that position." Too bad that brain tumor didn't get the message before it pissed away the fortune they amassed working 60 to 80 hours a week for decades.
http://www.theunion.com/article/20090607/WEBUPDATE/906079991/1066&ParentProfile=1053
The state faces an unprecedented drop in tax revenue and a widening budget deficit amid the deepest recession in decades, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to propose cost-cutting steps that once seemed unthinkable.
At stake are programs for the poor, elderly and frail, placing millions of people in the nation's most populous state at risk of falling through a decades-old social safety net.
Ending the welfare-to-work program for mothers and their children, which would affect some 546,000 families, and eliminating health insurance for 1 million children from low-income families are among the proposals that have generated the most criticism. The number of Alzheimer's patients, disabled and other frail recipients of in-home care also would be greatly reduced under the governor's latest budget proposal, leaving more than 400,000 people without such support.
This week, Schwarzenegger acknowledged that his decisions will be painful for many.
"I know the consequences of those cuts are not just dollars. I see the faces behind those dollars. ... I see the Alzheimer's patients losing some of their in-home support services," he told lawmakers. "It's an awful feeling, but we have no choice."
California stands apart from other states, at least for now, in considering solving its budget deficit with such deep cuts to core social services.
The state's projected $24.3 billion deficit for the fiscal year that begins in July amounts to a quarter of its general fund. Schwarzenegger and Republicans in the Legislature say they will not raise taxes again, after agreeing to $12.8 billion in sales, personal income and vehicle tax hikes earlier this year.
That has left lawmakers with few alternatives to severe spending cuts because Republicans, while the minority party, hold virtual veto power over the state budget by virtue of California's unusual requirement that fiscal measures be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
There is a sense of irony in Schwarzenegger's proposals: Many of the programs to assist the frail and needy have their roots in the Great Depression. It has taken the largest economic downturn since then to undo those programs, at least as proposed in California.
The elimination or significant reduction in social service programs also cuts against President Barack Obama's economic recovery efforts and attempt to overhaul the nation's health care market.
"The movement is to expand coverage, not contract," said Rachel Klein, deputy director of health policy for Families USA, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "If California were to do it, it would certainly be an enormous step behind for the country."
California stands to lose billions in federal matching dollars if Schwarzenegger's proposals pass. Advocates have argued that his cutbacks would jeopardize even more money from the federal stimulus program, but the Obama administration so far has granted waivers on that portion of funding for the state.
White House spokesman Adam Abrams acknowledged California's budget difficulties and said getting through the recession would require tough choices and shared sacrifices.
Melody Nolan is among those who might come out on the short end of those tough budget choices.
The 39-year-old Sacramento woman is worried the state will cut her in-home care. If so, she would not be able to see one of her many doctors for systemic lupus, an autoimmune illness that saps her of strength. Even though she still would receive disability benefits and subsidized housing, Nolan said she would lose her sense of independence and worries about ending up in a nursing home.
"Not being able to work is very hard on me. I'm a very goal-oriented person," Nolan said. "Not being able to take care of myself would just be devastating."
There are few precedents in modern history to the level of social spending cuts being contemplated in California.
In 1991, Michigan's then-governor, Republican John Engler, proposed ending general-assistance payments to single, able-bodied individuals with no dependents. His welfare-reform plan was intended to encourage employment and eventually reduced the number of recipients, saving the state millions of dollars a year.
Advocates worry that unraveling some of California's largest social safety nets would be disastrous, but conservatives say states still have a long list of assistance programs that will leave few people without any help at all.
Even if Schwarzenegger's cuts are adopted, federally mandated programs such as food stamps, low-income housing and Medicaid, the U.S. health program for low-income people, seniors and the disabled, will continue, said Robert Rector, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Those programs received financial boosts under the federal recovery act.
"It's not removing the safety net because we have all of these other programs," Rector said.
California also tends to spend more on welfare than other states. The state spent 5.4 percent of all its state and federal funding on public assistance in 2007, compared to a national average of 1.7 percent. The figures don't include Medicaid and other social service spending.
While the federal recovery act contains roughly $140 billion for state budget shortfalls, the temporary boost has not been enough to prevent other states from cutting public services.
Arizona has cut funding for a rehabilitation program that affects 4,700 children with chronic or disabling conditions, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think thank based in Washington, D.C.
Georgia has reduced services for the elderly, such as Alzheimer's services. And Nevada will make it harder for low-income families to apply for cash assistance and health insurance.
Democrats in the California Legislature have advocated similar steps, preferring what they call a surgical approach to the state's budget problems rather than the wholesale elimination of programs proposed by the Republican governor.
California's Healthy Families program, the state's version of the federal government's State Children's Health Insurance Program, is an example of how widely Schwarzenegger's cuts would be felt if the Legislature adopts them.
The program is designed for children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. Ending it in California would eliminate 15 percent of the 7 million children who benefit from it across the country.
"It'll send a terrible message to the nation about what our values are in California," said Wilma Chan, a former Democratic state lawmaker who now advocates for Children Now, a national group based in Oakland.
An estimated 4.7 million of California's 38 million residents — or 12.4 percent of the population — live below the federal poverty line, according to state figures. That's in line with the national average of 12.5 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
California also has a relatively high number of illegal immigrants, which complicates the debate over social service spending.
More than one third of cash-assistance cases involve benefits given only to children because their parents don't qualify based on work requirements or their immigration status.
Waiting more than two hours at a Sacramento County welfare office on a recent day, Carolina Fuentes applied for cash assistance, food stamps and health coverage for her 5-year-old daughter, Katherine Fuentes.
The 22-year-old single mother said she is looking for a job and does not qualify for benefits herself because she crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally as a teenager. She doesn't know what she will do if core state assistance is eliminated for her daughter.
"We really need the help," she said.

hottllipps wrote - "But her social security will diminish when he dies. She actually used to be one of those people that thought people only ended up in their position because they were slackers. She "had hers" and "would never be in that position." Too bad that brain tumor didn't get the message before it pissed away the fortune they amassed working 60 to 80 hours a week for decades."
Seniors and the disabled must lose virtually all assets when using Medicaid. Medicare has high deductibles (for Part A and D), and a 20% co-pay (for Part B). Unless you have a good Medigap plan, a serious illness can be expensive.
Medicare has MANY limits for chronic conditions. Coverage for in home care, therapy, blood tests, and many other services are capped and limited.
That is the high cost of government health care.
The same care that you indicate wiped out your parents fortune, the care it appears we are all about to have imposed upon us. :(
Winding up without a home, destitute, in poverty, on never-ending wait-lists is Valhalla to some. To others it may not be quite as appealing.
California has been running a state system of benefits, with very high overhead, for decades. It is now collapsing. If our federal government imitates California, our nation will eventually share the same fate.
Is the government the only venue your poor mother has for housing and aid?
"Waiting more than two hours at a Sacramento County welfare office on a recent day, Carolina Fuentes applied for cash assistance, food stamps and health coverage for her 5-year-old daughter, Katherine Fuentes.
The 22-year-old single mother said she is looking for a job and does not qualify for benefits herself because she crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally as a teenager. She doesn't know what she will do if core state assistance is eliminated for her daughter."
So here is an illegal immigrant who has been allowed to remain illegally in the country. She has produced a child she can not support, thus is sponging off the overburdened taxpayers of California. She needs to be deported, not supported.
I'm thinking
"I'm thinking legislators salaries, and per deim pay, Government cars, credit cards, etc. might have a little bit to do with the problem too. I also bet if we started threatening to take those things they'd figure something out PDQ."
Wouldn't bother me if some if this stuff went bye-bye. But I wouldn't recommend getting my hopes up under the current administration.