"Those who have the least get the least"
02/18/2010
As California legislators, in the coming week, wrap up a special session that was called to discuss the governor’s budget proposal, the state’s poorest may be given the least consideration as programs geared toward their survival and stability seem headed for the chopping block. While it is commonplace to look at services that do not directly generate revenue, the long-term effects and socioeconomic impacts of such cuts do not appear to be seen as issues to be concerned about. As Ventura Councilman Neal Andrews said, “It is axiomatic in politics that those who have the least get the least.” Given that too many politicians listen mainly to those who can help fund their next campaigns, the poor just don’t seem to stand much of a chance of having someone fight for them.
It is not news that the state of California is in a major crisis, facing yet another budget deficit — nearly $20 billion. To make up for this mega-shortfall, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes saving money as follows: 1.) 5 percent reduction in government employees’ salaries; 2.) 5 percent increase in employees’ contributions to their retirement funds, with a reduction in the state’s contribution; and 3.) 5 percent decrease by department directors of their payrolls, either by layoffs or similar measures. This proposal seems understandable and necessary, the same things many private companies have had to do over the last few years. State departments should not be exempt.
These cost-saving measures are just the tip of the iceberg, however. The proposed budget also includes: 1.) eliminating the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) program; 2.) reducing Medi-Cal eligibility to the minimum allowed under current federal law; 3.) eliminating the in-home supportive service (IHSS) program; 4.) eliminating the Healthy Families Program; 5.) eliminating funding for enrollment growth at the University of California and California State University; 6.) freezing the level of awards and income eligibility for Cal Grants; and 7.) eliminating funding for the Transitional Housing Program for emancipated foster/probation youth (THP-Plus).
By the looks of it, if such a budget should pass, the state’s poorest, weakest and most vulnerable are going to be in even direr straights than before. While we understand that people should be able to take care of themselves without government assistance, for many, it is just not possible. And the repercussions of further reductions in services could actually end up costing the state more than the intended savings.
Without CalWORKS, parents working toward degrees may have to drop out of school and settle for low-wage work and minimize their potential of getting better jobs and paying higher income taxes. Reducing Medi-Cal eligibility, as our story in this week’s news points out, would leave many disabled and elderly adults without the resources they need to stay in good mental and physical health. Such people may have to go to other state institutions, also paid for by taxpayers. Without enrollment growth at our state’s universities or access to Cal Grants, our young adults could face major setbacks in moving forward to becoming contributing members of society who pay taxes. And the list goes on.
While the special session is slated to be concluded by Feb. 22, there is still time to express your concerns to our local legislator who is vying on behalf of the less fortunate. Contact Assemblymember Pedro Nava (D-Ventura County) at 483-9808 or go to democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a35/ and fill out the comment form. Also, contact the governor at 916-445-2841 or go to e-mail him by going to gov.ca.gov/interact#email. There is an old saying that “you can judge a society by the way it treats it's least fortunate.” Let’s be a part of the solution, not the problem.
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
Related Articles
Comments
Chevron gouged $24 billions in excessive profits in 2008, as per www.tyrannyofoil.com. Schwarzenegger should put an excessive tax on these profits, instead of protecting the oil corporations from fair taxation, then, there would be sufficient public funds for all the vulnerable, people programs. Big business lost the fight to eliminate domestic violence funding, so now they are coming back with a vengeance. There is no funding provision for battered women shelters in the proposed budget. Schwarzee picks on the most vulnerable, and not on corporate "Deadbeats."
Those of us who don't belive in dependency-creating, immoral, govt wealth-redistribution programs are being vindicated by the failure of democratic socialism in California and country as a whole.
What really struck me about this editorial was how EVERYTHING was related to how it would affect the STATE. Seemingly, the author is completely unaware that govt has no money of its own and must TAKE it by FORCE from those of us in the private sector who produce real wealth and economic growth.
For the welfarists: CA has been one of the HIGHEST taxed/regulated districts in America for a long time, yet...we're STILL broke. Revenue, OBVIOUSLY, is not the issue here, it is a SPENDING problem.
Earl, how did Chevron "gouge" anyone? Their profit margins are within a very reasonable range, compared w/other market sectors of the economy. The federal and state govts already levy high taxes and impose onerous regulations on the oil industry. Oil companies, unlike govts, actually produce something of VALUE. Why do you want to punish success w/punative taxes? Where does this envious greed, on the part of so-called 'liberals/progressives' come from?
Socialism fails--ALWAYS, because it creates warped incentive structures that encourage dependency and discourage legitimate economic growth--both which will degrade quality-of-life over the long-term. We're seeing it in action now: decades of socialism/fascism/big-govt gaining momentum (from 'progressive' income taxation, to Hoover's/FDR's "New Deal", the "Civil Rights/Great Society/Guns-and-Butter" era, the military-industrial-complex, so-called "environmental" regulations, State/local controls over property/business/professions for a variety of reasons, to today's TARP and attempts to totally takeover healthcare and initiate the economy-killing Cap-and-Trade scheme) .
Socialists just don't understand these simple concepts:
1. There is no such thing as a free lunch
2. The more you tax an object the less of it will be produced
3. The more you subsidize an object the more demand you'll create for that object (more demand = less supply = higher relative cost)
4. Humans respond to incentives/dis-incentives
5. ALL taxation is theft
QUOTE: “you can judge a society by the way it treats it's least fortunate.”
I ask: what in the hell do govt-welfare programs--which STEAL from producers to give to non-producers--have to do w/how 'society' (us as individuals) cares for the TRULY needy?
CORRECTION:
I wrote:
"...subsidizing people to NOT work = MORE people will have an incentive to work..."
I meant to write:
"...subsidizing people to NOT work = MORE people will have an incentive NOT to work..."
shane1: Big Oil gouged the world planet, with price of oil going from $30/barrell to $148 /barrell. Big Oil caused this increased from in behind the scenes, Google "The Global Oil Scam" by Phil Davis. With gas at $4.50 a gallon, Chevron could help but to make excessive profits. To understand the sleaze-side of Chevron, see www.truecostofchevron.com. Chevron uses its political control, not to pay an oil extraction, which other states collect, plus local taxes.
Earl, question:
How much do GOVERNMENTS "gouge the planet" for--for providing NOTHING of value and extracting fees for 'services' which they FORCE on people?
The cost of gas--on the world market--has been priced in USDollars for a long time. The price of gasoline in Europe didn't go up nearly as much (%-wise) as it did in the USA. This indicates that it is a USDollar phenomenon more than a case of the evil oil companies "gouging" anyone.
I've no doubt that many corporations attempt to gain favors from govt...again, this is more a problem w/the fact that govts wield such vast power over economies.
The oil/gas industry is one of the MOST REGULATED...how has that worked out? Socialists STILL bytch about them...
Socialists LOVE throwing out this "$24 billion" figure, w/o putting it into context.
Chevron is a HUGE coroporation...its PROFIT MARGIN is well w/i a reasonable parameter...
Greedy socialists want to steal profits, but do they ALSO want to subsidize these big, bad, evils corps when they LOSE money?
Well, they passed TARP...so I guess the anwer is a resounding "yes"!
I will never understand this insane socialist opposition to profit...why? Are losses preferable? Is it jealousy at private industry's ability to function?
I've yet to meet a socialist who practices what they preach, i.e., any who live a "non-profit" life.