Project HEAL

California Dream Act Inches Closer to Reality

2011-05-20T14:43:00.000-07:00

May 10, 2011
By Reanna Delgadillo

Students who meet in-state tuition requirements are closer to getting financial aid.

The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk. AB 130 was passed by the state assembly and is now moving to the senate. Its companion bill, AB 131, has been put into suspension.

AB 130, authored by Assemblymember Gil Cedillo, states undocumented students would receive “specified financial aid programs administered by California’s public colleges and universities,” according to Cedillo’s website.

Conrado Terrazas, communications deputy for Cedillo, said the main goal is to help the economy.

“If you have these students graduate from college and get a master’s or a Ph.D. or a B.A., they’re going be able to contribute to the economy,” Terrazas said.

He added that would also help the students.

“These are the best (students). Kids who have done well in high school and they have applied and been accept to college,” Terrazas said. “This should not prevent them from being able to succeed.”

He added that students who would normally receive a scholarship and complete the process of meeting the requirement would benefit.

“The only thing preventing those students from receiving that is the fact that they’re undocumented,” Terrazas said.

Terrazas said the deadline for all bills to be given and pushed to the governor’s desk is Sept. 9.

“Then he has until Oct. 9 to sign,” Terrazas said.

Terrazas added AB 130 pertains to private scholarships from businesses or corporations.

“AB 131, which covers Cal grants, institutional aid and Board of Governors (BOGC) fee waivers for community colleges,” Terrazas said.

AB 131 is now in suspension and chair of Assembly Appropriations Committee, Felipe Fuentes and the head of the budget committee Bob Blumenfield will decide if it will be released.

“It needs to be voted by the appropriations committee by the end May or it would die,” Terrazas said.

Terrazas said Gov. Jerry Brown said he supported the Dream Act in a debate last fall.

Erik Fallis, CSU media specialist, said the system has always been a long time supporter of this type of legislature.

“We are an institution built on access. We believe in providing broad access to higher education,” Fallis said.

He added the CSU believes it’s “important” for the most amounts of people to have access to higher education.

“To better themselves, to better their lives and to have access to a bright economic future,” Fallis said.

Fallis said this legislation will help to “generate prosperity for their community.”

Fallis said allowing more access to the CSUs would help the entire state.

He said another consideration when it comes to this bill is the number of students it would affect in the CSU.

“We’re talking about a small population,” Fallis said. “Its much less than 1 percent. We are not talking about a huge number of people.”

“There are so many positive benefits not only for the individual but for society as a whole,” Fallis said.

Javiera Infante is one of the founding member of the San Fernando Valley Dream Team.

“I started organizing in January and the group has grown to 10 very active members,” Infante said. “This is a pretty good base for the time being.”

She said the organization was “very excited” about the passage of AB 130.

“We were very confident it was going to pass because it’s the easier half of the California Dream Act,” Infante said. “So we were very sure we weren’t going to have a problem.”

Infante said it is “crucial” to get AB 131 out of suspension and onto the Assembly floor.

“We need that financial aid the state can provide for us,” Infante said. “Having the private scholarships is a great help and we’re very happy about that but most important is having access to the state-funded help.”

Infante said the Dream Team is holding a town hall May 14 at Mary Immaculate Church in Pacoima to inform the community of the Dream Act.

“Fuentes represents a large portion of the valley,” Infante said. “We want people to know he has the power to move the bill out of appropriations.”

Source: http://sundial.csun.edu/2011/05/california-dream-act-inches-closer-to-reality/

Deep Social Services Cuts Outlined in California

2011-05-20T14:17:00.000-07:00

By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: January 10, 2011

SACRAMENTO — Workers were removing the ornaments from the Christmas tree at the Capitol here on Monday morning, and much the same mood filled the legislative chambers as Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his Grinch-like budget.

Gov. Jerry Brown introduced his budget Monday.
It included $12.5 billion in spending cuts, with a 10 percent cut in take-home pay for some state employees and deep reductions in social services. He also suggested a five-year extension of a bundle of taxes, a plan that requires voter approval, setting the stage for a potentially contentious special election in June.

The budget is meant to address an estimated $25.4 billion deficit, just the latest shortfall for a state that has experienced a drumbeat of bad economic news in recent years. But Mr. Brown, who took office last week, cast the blame even further, saying the state’s leaders had spent the last decade balancing their books with “gimmicks and tricks and unrealistic expectations that pushed this state deeper and deeper into debt.”

But that period, Mr. Brown repeatedly emphasized, was over.

“What I propose will be painful,” he said. “It’s going to take sacrifice from every sector of California.”

In terms of sheer dollars, the steepest cuts affect the most vulnerable in the state, including a $1.7 billion cut to Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for poor families and disabled people; a $1.5 billion reduction in its welfare-to-work program; and $750 million cut from the agency that provides services to those with developmental disabilities.

The state’s higher education system — including the highly regarded University of California — would lose $1.4 billion. The president of the university, Mark G. Yudof, who has dealt with protests at several campuses over tuition increases, called it “a sad day for California,” but he seemed to recognize the gravity of the state’s bind.

“The university will stand up and do all it can to help the state through what is a fiscal, structural and political crisis,” Mr. Yudof said. “There can be no business as usual.”

That sentiment seems to be an early mantra for Mr. Brown, a Democrat who became governor for the second time. He also proposed on Monday what he characterized as a “vast and historic” reorganization, moving many duties now handled by the state down to a local level. (Some of the shift of power to the state occurred during the first Brown administration, when the voter-approved Proposition 13 cut local taxation power.)

Under Mr. Brown’s plan, a raft of state functions — like fire and emergency response, court security, and housing for low-level criminals and oversight of adult parolees, among others — would become local or county responsibilities. The proposal was met with guarded support by county officials.

“Realignment can only succeed if there are stable revenues to fund the new responsibilities being handed to counties,” said John Tavaglione, the president of the California State Association of Counties.

Budget analysts said Mr. Brown’s approach seemed more realistic, with less reliance on borrowing, than some budgets offered by his immediate predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

On Monday, Republicans — in the minority in the Legislature — seemed cool to putting any tax proposal on the ballot.

“Assembly Republicans stand united as the last line of defense for California taxpayers,” said Connie Conway, the Assembly’s Republican leader.

Mr. Brown said that he would vigorously campaign for the taxes and that deeper cuts awaited if voters rejected the tax extension.

“People should assume that’s what’s left is what will be cut,” he said.

Even if the taxes pass, the effect of the budget cuts will be harsh, said Jean M. Ross, the executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonpartisan group that evaluates the repercussions of public policy on low- and middle-class Californians.

The cuts, “especially in health and human services, are very difficult at a time when the economy remains extremely weak,” Ms. Ross said, adding that the effects could be multiplicative, as poor families received less aid but had to pay more for care.

The cost of health care was the focus of several hundred protesters who gathered on the Capitol steps after Mr. Brown’s announcement, demanding that the state adopt a single-payer health system. Inside, a group of advocates in wheelchairs also criticized a steep reduction in financing for in-home care.

“Some people are going to lose their lives on this,” said Greg Thompson, executive director of the Personal Assistance Services Council of Los Angeles County, which has some 185,000 people receiving in-home care. Mr. Thompson uses a wheelchair because of a spinal cord injury.

Mr. Brown acknowledged that many of the cuts would be “very, very difficult,” especially for low-income Californians. But he said it was time for the state to “pay the piper.”

“This is the world we live in,” he said. “You can’t manufacture money.”

Malia Wollan contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 11, 2011, on page A13 of the New York edition..

O.C. doctors decry state health cuts

2010-02-17T17:08:00.000-08:00

By COURTNEY PERKES
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
Published: Feb. 16, 2010

Orange County health care providers on Tuesday denounced $2.9 billion in proposed state cuts that they said would drive the poor, sick and elderly into strained emergency rooms while costing taxpayers far more in the end.

Public health advocates acknowledged California's severe $19.9 billion shortfall, but said the budget should be not be balanced at the expense of the most vulnerable, who could lose coverage of hearing aids, mammogram screenings and medically supervised day care that keeps them out of nursing homes.

"The numbers are daunting," said Dr. Charles Vega, residency director at the UC Irvine Family Health Center. "This is obviously a crisis. I'm really glad I don't treat numbers. I treat patients. To me, these numbers mean real people."
The event, organized by the Coalition of Orange County Community Clinics, along with other nonprofit health care providers, was intended to put a human face on the proposed cuts.

Ora Lee Walker, 76, of Anaheim stepped to the podium set up in the lobby of AltaMed's Santa Ana medical clinic, her unsteady gait supported by a walker.
She attends the nonprofit's Cypress adult day health care program twice a week. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed eliminating Medi-Cal coverage for the centers. Last year's budget reduced the number of days patients could go, but a judge halted the cut before it went into effect.

"It makes me feel frightened," Walker said. "I live alone. I am alone. This way, I'm around lots of people. They give me breakfast and lunch and take me back home."
Additionally, the center's nurses monitor her diabetes and she receives physical therapy. While Walker lives independently, the program supervises patients with dementia while their caregiver children go to work.

"They reduce costs by avoiding expensive and unwarranted inpatient care," said Dr. Albert Chang, a pediatrician and Alta Med's medical director for Orange County.
Without coverage for those frail patients, he said at least 30 percent would need to be moved into a more costly skilled nursing facility with the tab picked up by Medi-Cal.

Health care officials outlined the following potential impacts to Orange County:

•The County could lose an estimated $15 million for adult day care centers and Medi-Cal benefits for legal immigrants who have been in the country less than five years. For Healthy Families, the state's low-cost health insurance program for children, an estimated 20,000 kids could lose coverage.

•Community clinics could lose $12 million if programs for early detection of breast cancer, asthma control and reimbursement for medical bills for the uninsured are eliminated.

•More than 115,000 local children receive dental and medical care through funds from Props. 10 and 63. The governor has proposed diverting almost $1 billion of those funds.

In the last budget, Orange County experienced major cuts to AIDS prevention services, as well as the elimination of dental and vision care for adults receiving Medi-Cal. In one case, an Anaheim woman, who is legally blind even when wearing glasses, was denied a new pair when hers broke.

Unlike state programs, hospital officials said they have a legal responsibility to see anyone who walks into the emergency room.

"It's a cascading effect," said Craig Myers, chief executive of Coastal Communities Hospital in Santa Ana. "Anytime you shut down here, it has to go some place."

Kimberly Vasquez, 3, of Costa Mesa snacks in a waiting room while waiting to see a doctor at AltaMed Medical Group in Santa Ana Tuesday. Through visits here, Kimberly's asthma is under control, says her mother Rosalba Alonso. Healthcare providers and patients gathered at AltaMed offices to protest the $2.9 billion in proposed healthcare cuts in the governor's budget.

AltaMed healthcare patient Ora Lee Walker, 76, is reliant on the medical care she receives at the AltaMed Adult Day Health Care Center in Cypress. The governor's proposed $2.9 billion cuts to heathcare would place her program in jeopardy, she believes.

California Approaches a Deal on Budget Cuts

2009-07-17T14:32:00.000-07:00

By Jennifer Steinhauer
Published: July 16, 2009

LOS ANGELES — With a deal to close a $26 billion budget gap tantalizingly close — and the state’s fiscal situation continuing to erode — California lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger found themselves ensnared in a fight over education financing Thursday that prevented an agreement.

Skip to next paragraphThe state must allocate roughly 40 percent of its general fund to public elementary and high schools as well as community colleges, a requirement imposed by voters with the passage of Proposition 98 in 1988. But over the last two fiscal years, spending on schools has been cut to about $50 billion from roughly $60 billion, and was facing a cut of $2.3 billion more in this budget round.

Democrats, who control the Legislature, want to make sure that any education money cut from this year’s budget is restored when the economy rebounds. State officials said that Democrats had asked for a law to be passed that would guarantee the restoration of education spending, but that the Schwarzenegger administration rejected the idea.

Nonetheless, the governor still sounded optimistic that a deal would be reached soon.
“You know, negotiations stall and sometimes new things come up and one has to reassess, and then you continue on again,” Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said. “There’s a will there in this building for both parties to get this done.”

The governor had earlier proposed that Proposition 98 be suspended for the duration of the fiscal crisis, an idea that prompted a stinging television advertising campaign by the state teachers’ union in response.

“We believe if you’re going to share the pain, then share it,” said David A. Sanchez, president of the California Teachers Association. “We have already taken billions of dollars in cuts.”
Three rating agencies have lowered California’s credit rating to just above junk level, and the state is paying its vendors with i.o.u.’s.

On Thursday, Bill Lockyer, the state treasurer, issued a statement warning of dire consequences if the budget crisis was not resolved.

“I call on the governor and Legislature to focus exclusively on what it takes to bring this year’s budget back in balance, honestly and immediately,” Mr. Lockyer said. “I urge them to narrow, not expand, the list of their disputes, to quit adding or resurrecting endless ideological debating points, and to stop using budget negotiations to score points with political allies or against partisan opponents. I ask them to stop devoting energy to any issue that does not directly relate to closing this year’s budget gap without adding to out-year liabilities.”

Lawmakers passed a budget in February, but the legislation, which covered 17 months’ worth of spending, was dependent on the passage of ballot propositions that failed in May, resulting in an expanding budget gap.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/us/17calif.html?hp

California to miss budget deadline, "meltdown" nears

2009-06-15T21:57:00.000-07:00

Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:54pm EDT

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - California lawmakers were poised to miss their constitutional deadline on Monday for a state budget, bringing the state's government closer to running out of cash.

Democrats and Republicans in the legislature's budget conference committee worked through Monday afternoon on a variety of proposals addressing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to close a $24.3 billion budget shortfall, but they failed to find common ground on its most dramatic proposal: eliminating the state's welfare system.

"This meeting is not headed in that direction," Republican Assemblyman Roger Niello said. California's revenues are plunging amid recession, rising unemployment and the prolonged housing crisis, and the state is unable to borrow its way out of its immediate financial trouble by issuing debt at low cost because of its budget gap.

It will run out of cash within weeks if it does not balance its books, leaving it little option but to postpone a variety of payments, according to State Controller John Chiang, who estimated last week that California was "less than 50 days away from a meltdown of state government." Democrats, who control California's legislature, said their aim is to cut spending, but to maintain a base of government programs, including many for the needy.

Republicans countered that only dramatic cuts will balance California's budget for its next fiscal year, which begins in July.

Some state Assembly Democrats have talked about the possibility of increasing some taxes to raise revenues, but both Schwarzenegger and Republicans said no.

Republicans have enough votes to block budgets from passing and have used the power in previous years to delay spending plans from reaching the governor's desk.

In fact, the legislature has missed its constitutional budget deadline for more than 20 years running. It is not unusual for the government of the most populous U.S. state to begin its new fiscal year without a spending plan in place which is one reason why California has the lowest credit rating of any U.S. state.

In most years, California officials have been able to rely on the state's growing economy to fill the state's government's coffers -- even as the bickered over budget plans.

The sooner California has a budget, the sooner it will be able to approach Wall Street to sell short-term debt in the form of revenue anticipation notes to help smooth out its near term finances, according to the state treasurer's office.

(Reporting by Jim Christie, editing by Leslie Gevirtz)
Reuters 2009

Governor, Democratic Lawmakers Face Off on Budget Proposals

2009-06-11T10:56:00.000-07:00

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Senate and Assembly Democrats are butting heads over various proposals to address California's estimated $24 billion budget deficit, the Los Angeles Times reports.

During an interview with the Times' editorial board Wednesday, Schwarzenegger said it would be "irresponsible" to pursue the Senate Democrats' budget proposal, which calls for closing the budget gap by dipping into state reserves.

"We have not hit the bottom" of the economic downturn, the governor said (Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times, 6/11).

On Tuesday, Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) proposed a budget that would leave less than $1 billion in state reserves in an effort to preserve programs such as Healthy Families, the state's Children's Health Insurance Program.

Democrats also hope to preserve in-home support services for the elderly and HIV/AIDS programs.

Steinberg said legislators would be willing to pare down such programs, but not cut them entirely (California Healthline, 6/10).

No Short-Term Loans
Schwarzenegger also told the Times he would let California's government come to a "grinding halt" rather than approve a high-interest loan if lawmakers cannot decide on a budget plan in the coming weeks.

State officials estimate that California will run out of cash by the end of July unless a budget agreement is reached (Los Angeles Times, 6/11).

Assembly Democrats Speak Up
In the Assembly, Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) did not comment on Steinberg's plan, but said Assembly Democrats would focus on looking for ways to raise new revenue.
Although sources say Bass and Steinberg continue to work together closely, differences in their budget approaches could reflect growing divisions among Democrats in the two houses, Capitol Weekly reports.

Senate Democrats support cutting some state services, while Assembly Democrats have resisted some of these proposals, including eliminating money for rural hospitals (York, Capitol Weekly, 6/11).

On Wednesday, Bass said that lawmakers "can't solve a deficit this big through cuts alone," adding that she would prefer a balanced approach that includes an equal amount of new revenue.

Bass did not elaborate on the options Assembly members are considering to raise revenue, but she said some could be implemented with a majority vote in the Legislature, meaning that they would constitute fees or other non-tax measures. She also said the Assembly intends to reach a budget agreement by the end of June.

SEIU Calls for Tax Increases
On Wednesday, the Service Employees International Union launched a $1 million advertising campaign in favor of raising taxes to help address the deficit.

SEIU represents 700,000 Californians, including in-home health care workers and others who could lose state funding under the proposed budget cuts (Sanders, Sacramento Bee, 6/11).

Opinion Piece
Schwarzenegger's proposals to reduce state spending for Medi-Cal and Healthy Families will result in the loss of federal funds, meaning that "the governor's proposals are not just seemingly heartless, they are wholly counterproductive to any attempt to get us out of our economic distress," Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, writes in a San Francisco Chronicle opinion piece.

Wright calls for the governor to revisit his earlier health care reform proposals and consider other ways to generate revenue, such as expanding the sales tax (Wright, San Francisco Chronicle, 6/11).

Source: Californiahealthline.org

STATE BUDGET CUTS TO HEALTH CARE

2009-06-04T17:49:00.000-07:00

MORE THAN 1.9 MILLION CALIFORNIANS COULD LOSE ACCESS TO HEALTH COVERAGE UNDER THE GOVERNOR’S MAY REVISION

At a time when the federal government is seeking ways to expand health coverage to more Americans, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed substantial cuts that could result in more than 1.9 million Californians losing access to health coverage within three years.* In addition, these cuts would cause California to lose an estimated $2.3 billion in federal matching funds in 2009-10 alone. Specifically:

• The Governor proposes to reduce state funding for the Medi-Cal Program by $1.0 billion in 2009-10 through unspecified changes that would likely include limits on eligibility for Medi-Cal services. The Administration would need permission from the federal government to make eligibility cuts, due to provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In the past year, the Governor has proposed three eligibility changes that could cause nearly 1 million Californians to lose access to health coverage (see table). While the Legislature previously rejected these proposals, all three could be included in the Administration’s proposed $1.0 billion reduction – a cut that would cause the state to lose an estimated $1.6 billion in federal funds in 2009-10 under ARRA’s enhanced matching rate of 61.59 percent.

• The Governor also released, on May 26, a proposal to eliminate the Healthy Families Program as of August 1, 2009. Previously, the Governor proposed dropping 225,000 children from the program. If Healthy Families were eliminated, 942,000 California children who would otherwise have been covered as of June 30, 2010 – the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year – would not be covered, according to the most recent state estimate available, which likely understates the number of children affected. Eliminating the program would reduce General Fund spending by $369 million in 2009-10, but California would also lose approximately $685 million in federal matching funds.

More Than 1.9 Million Californians Could Lose Access to Health Coverage Under the Governor’s May Revision

Potential Cut Number of Californians Affected:

• Medi-Cal Program Require families to file paperwork four times per year for their children to retain health coverage (471,500 at full impact)

• Restrict low-income working parents’ eligibility for no-cost health coverage (433,600 at full impact)

• Limit the number of seniors and people with disabilities with access to no-cost health coverage (73,400 in 2009-10)

• Healthy Families Program - Eliminate the program (942,000 as of June 30, 2010)

TOTAL IMPACT --> 1,920,500+ CALIFORNIANS!!!

*One potential cut, for example, would take 33 months to reach full impact. The more than 1.9 million estimate reflects state projections as of May 2008 and November 2008. Rising caseloads due to the economic downturn suggest that the actual number of Californians who could lose access to health coverage could exceed 2 million.

Source: Department of Finance, Department of Health Care Services, and Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board

Report Prepared by: The California Budget Project (June 1, 2009) http://www.cbp.org/

---Spanish:

Mas de 1.9 millones de residentes de California podrían perder cobertura médica bajo la revisión presupuestal del mes de Mayo del Gobernador

• En una época en la que el gobierno federal está buscando la manera de expandir la cobertura a más americanos, el Gobernador Schwarzenegger ha propuesto reducciones sustanciales y como resultado, más de 1.9 millones de residentes de California dejarán de tener acceso a cobertura médica en los próximos tres años. * Además, estas reducciones harían que California dejara de recibir aproximadamente 2.3 mil millones de dólares en aportaciones federales en 2009-10. Específicamente:

• El Gobernador propone reducir las aportaciones estatales al programa de Medi-Cal en mil millones de dólares en 2009-10 a través de cambios no especificados que muy probablemente incluyan restricciones en elegibilidad a los servicios de Medi-Cal. La Administración necesitaría autorización de parte del gobierno federal para establecer dichas restricciones, de acuerdo a lo establecido en la Ley Americana de Recuperación e Inversión de 2009 (ARRA). En el ultimo año, el Gobernador ha propuesto 3 cambios a la elegibilidad que podrían causar que un millón de residentes de California perdieran acceso a cobertura médica (ver tabla) A pesar de que la Legislación ya había rechazado estas propuestas, las 3 podrían ser incluidas en la reducción de mil millones de dólares que sugiere la Administración – una reducción que provocaría que el estado perdiera 1.6 mil millones de dólares en aportaciones del gobierno federal en 2009-10 bajo la tarifa de aportaciones de la Ley de ARRA a un nuevo porcentaje de 61.59 por ciento.

• En mayo 26, el Gobernador también anuncio una propuesta para eliminar el programa de Healthy Families a partir de agosto 1, 2009. Anteriormente, el Gobernador propuso sacar a 225,000 niños de este programa. Si el programa de Healthy Families fuera eliminado, 942,000 niños que habrían recibido cobertura a partir de Junio 30, 2010 – el final del año fiscal 2009-10- no tendrán cobertura, esto de acuerdo a los cálculos mas recientes disponibles, los cuales probablemente no reflejen el numero real de niños que se verían afectados. La eliminación del programa reduciría el Fondo General de gastos en $369 millones en 2009-10, pero California también perdería aproximadamente $685 millones en aportaciones federales.

Más de 1.9 millones de residentes de California podrían perder cobertura médica bajo la revisión presupuestal del mes de Mayo del Gobernador.

Posibles reducciones - Numero de residentes de California afectados - Programa Medi-Cal:

• Requiere que las familias presenten documentos de solicitud 4 veces al año para conservar su cobertura (Impacto total 471,500).

• Restricción de elegibilidad para cobertura médica a padres de bajos ingresos (Impacto total 433,600).

• Reducción del numero de personas de la tercera edad y con discapacidades que tienen acceso a cobertura médica sin costo (73,400 en 2009-10).

• Programa de Healthy Families - Eliminación del programa (942,000 a partir de Junio 30, 2010).

¡¡¡IMPACTO TOTAL --> 1,920,500+ CALIFORNIANOS!!!

Fuente: Department of Finance, Department of Health Care Services, and Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board

* Ejemplo: para verse el impacto total en una posible reducción, se llevarían 33 meses. El calculo de más de 1.9 millones refleja las proyecciones del estado a partir de Mayo 2008 y Noviembre 2008. El aumento en el número de casos debido a la crisis financiera sugiere que el número real de residentes de California que perderían acceso a cobertura medica podría exceder los 2 millones.

Reporte preparado por: The California Budget Project (June 1, 2009) http://www.cbp.org/

Strangling California's budget

2008-02-11T10:05:00.000-08:00

A proposed 'hard' cap on spending is misguided.

By Jean Ross
January 27, 2009

As California grapples with a fiscal crisis, state lawmakers are facing painful choices about where to cut spending and how to increase revenues this year. California is one of only three states that require a "supermajority" vote to pass a budget, a constraint that results in deadlock and chronically late budgets. The economic downturn has contributed to a massive budget shortfall now estimated at more than $40 billion -- roughly $15 billion for the rest of the current fiscal year and $25 billion in 2009-10. Even in good times, California's outdated tax system does not bring in enough revenue to support the schools, universities, programs and services that Californians want and expect.

In the midst of these complex challenges, Republican lawmakers are proposing replacing the current state spending limit with what's called a hard spending cap. They consider it a cure-all for the state's budgetary woes.

The specifics of this cap surfaced last year as a proposed state constitutional amendment -- ACA 19 -- by Assembly member Mike Villines (R-Clovis). The California Budget Project analyzed the effect of the proposal, looking at what would have happened to the state had Villines' cap been enacted in three earlier fiscal years. What we discovered was that far from being a cure-all, a hard spending cap would place an arbitrary stranglehold on the state's ability to improve its schools, rebuild its infrastructure, care for its senior population and respond nimbly to future challenges. Disguised as a solution, this cap could quickly become one of California's most serious budgetary problems.

What would the hard spending cap do? It would choose a recent fiscal year as a "base" and tie increases in state spending beyond that cap to population growth, as well as the change in the consumer price index or the change in per capita personal income, whichever is lower.

The Budget Project found that if this cap had been enacted in 1995, using that year's budget as the base, it would have resulted in a 2008-09 budget $39.7 billion below what was enacted in September. While this would bring the budget into balance, it also would require spending cuts more than twice as large as those proposed by the governor. What would that missing $39.7 billion pay for? It's almost as much as the state spent for K-12 education in 2007-08, and it's more than the state spent for all its health and human services programs last year.

Instituting such a cap would result in permanent, draconian cuts to California services. It would limit the state's ability to restore cuts made during the current crisis and stifle hopes of, in better times, increasing spending on programs that need it: providing preschool or healthcare for all children, rebuilding infrastructure and improving public education.

Linking future budget increases to inflation and population growth, blunt instruments at best, is part of the problem. A simple rise in population does not account for complex changes in population that affect demands on the state's budget. As baby boomers age, California's senior population will grow and turn to Medi-Cal and other such programs in large numbers. Without increased investment, these programs will not be sufficient. Likewise, the consumer price index measures changes in the costs of household purchases -- such as diapers and canned goods -- not things such as healthcare. Between 1990 and 2007, national per capita healthcare expenditures more than doubled, rising by 164%, while the consumer price index for California rose by just 61%.

The hard spending cap also would be incompatible with Proposition 98, which guarantees a minimum level of state funding for K-12 education and community colleges. That guarantee would generally outpace increases allowed under the cap, which would result in education crowding out all other state spending.

California has had a spending limit since 1979. It calculates a cap each year, based on changes in population and per capita personal income, and therefore limits spending as a share of the state's economy. At one point, California had a harder spending cap, similar to the one proposed recently. But even business leaders and Republican lawmakers recognized that it constrained the state's ability to meet basic demands for public investment. The campaign to modify the original cap was led by then-Gov. George Deukmejian, then-California Chamber of Commerce President Kirk West and then-California Taxpayers Assn. President Larry McCarthy.

At the end of the day, the important lesson is that caps don't sensibly balance budgets -- leadership and difficult choices do.

Jean Ross is executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonprofit public policy research group.

Source: Los Angeles Timeshttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ross27-2009jan27,0,2053416.story

Estrangulando el presupuesto de California
Un proyecto de restricciones en gastos del presupuesto

Por Jean Ross
27 de enero del 2009

California se enfrenta con una crisis fiscal, los legisladores estatales se enfrentan a difíciles decisiones acerca de dónde y cómo reducir los gastos para aumentar los ingresos de este año. California es uno de los únicos tres estados que requieren una "super mayoría" la votación para aprobar un presupuesto, una limitación que se traduce en estancamiento y crónicamente resulta en presupuestos tardados. La recesión económica ha contribuido a un enorme déficit presupuestario que actualmente se estima en más de $40 billones - aproximadamente $ 15 millones para el resto del año fiscal en curso y $25 billones en 2009-10. Incluso en tiempos de bonanza, California está operando con un sistema fiscal obsoleto, que no hace lo suficiente en los ingresos de apoyo a las escuelas, las universidades, y en los programas y servicios que los californianos quieren y esperan.

En medio de estos complejos y desafíos, los legisladores republicanos se proponen a sustituir el actual estado de gastos, con lo que se llama una dura limitación de gastos. Lo consideran una solución para los problemas presupuestarios del estado.

Los detalles de esta propuesta surgió el año pasado como una propuesta de enmienda constitucional estatal - ACA 19 – por el miembro de la Asamblea por Mike Villines (R-Clovis). California Budget Project analizó el efecto de la propuesta, viendo lo que habría ocurrido con el estado, Villines menciona que "se promulgó en tres ejercicios fiscales anteriores. Lo que descubrió fue que lejos de ser una panacea de todo, una limitación de gastos que restringe la capacidad del estado para mejorar sus escuelas, reconstruir su infraestructura, la atención por su alto nivel de población y responder ágilmente a los retos futuros. Disfrazada de una solución, esta propuesta podría convertirse rápidamente en uno de los más graves problemas presupuestarios de California.

¿Cuál sería la limitación de gastos difícil de hacer? Se elige un reciente ejercicio fiscal como una "base" y vincularía los aumentos de los gastos estatales más allá de esa propuesta al crecimiento de la población, así como el cambio en el índice de precios al consumidor o el cambio en los ingresos personales “per cápita”, lo que sea menor.

El presupuesto del proyecto consideró que si este límite se había promulgado en 1995, utilizando el presupuesto de ese año como base, se han traducido en un presupuesto 2008-09 $ 39.7 millones por debajo de lo que se promulgó en septiembre. Esto elevaría el presupuesto en equilibrio, y también requeriría recortes del gasto de más de dos veces mayor que los propuestos por el gobernador.

¿Qué haría con lo que falta $39.7 millones para pagar? Es casi tanto como el Estado gasta en la educación K-12 en 2007-08, y es más que lo que el Estado gasta en salud y todos sus programas de servicios humanos del año pasado.

La instauración de este tipo tendría como resultado un control como sello permanente, los recortes de los servicios de California serían draconianos. Que limitaría la capacidad del Estado para restablecer los recortes realizados durante la actual crisis y la esperanza en tiempos mejores, aumentar el gasto en programas que lo necesitan: la prestación de asistencia sanitaria o preescolar para todos los niños, la reconstrucción de la infraestructura y la mejora de la educación pública.

Vinculación de futuros incrementos en el presupuesto a la inflación y el crecimiento de la población, en el mejor de los instrumentos, es parte del problema. Un simple aumento de la población no tiene en cuenta los cambios en los complejos de la población que afectan a las demandas sobre el estado del presupuesto. Como los "baby boomers" (en los años dorados), la alta población de California crecerá y Medi-Cal y otros programas de este tipo en grandes cantidades se verán afectados. Sin el aumento de la inversión, estos programas no serán suficientes. Asimismo, el índice de precios de consumo mide la evolución de los costes de las compras del hogar - tales como pañales y productos enlatados - no cosas como la asistencia sanitaria. Entre 1990 y 2007, los gastos nacionales de la salud per cápita han más que duplicado, aumentando en un 164%, mientras que el índice de precios al consumidor de California incrementó sólo un 61%.

La limitación de los gastos también sería difícilmente incompatible con la Proposición 98, que garantiza un nivel mínimo de financiación estatal para la educación K-12 y los colegios comunitarios. Que garantizan, en general, los aumentos que superan el límite permitido en virtud, que se traduciría en una exclusión de la educación a todos los demás gastos estatales.

California ha tenido un límite de gasto desde 1979. Se calcula un control de cada año, sobre la base de los cambios en la población y la renta per cápita, y por lo tanto, limita el gasto como porcentaje de la economía del estado. En un momento, California, tenía un control de gasto más, similar al propuesto recientemente. Pero incluso los líderes empresariales y legisladores republicanos reconocieron que la limitada capacidad del Estado para satisfacer las demandas de la inversión pública. La campaña para modificar el control original fue dirigida por el gobierno anterior. George Deukmejian, entonces en la Cámara de Comercio de California y el Presidente Kirk-Oeste y, contribuyentes de la Asociacion de California con el Presidente Larry McCarthy.

Al final del día, la lección importante es que los controles de gasto no son razonables para el equilibrio del presupuesto - el liderazgo y las elecciones difíciles son lo que hacen la diferencia.

Jean Ross es director ejecutivo del California Budget Project, una organización sin fines de lucro de investigación sobre política pública de grupo.

Fuente: Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ross27-2009jan27,0,2053416.story