Schwarzenegger proposes deep cuts to welfare, prisons, state wages

[Liberal_in_LA]

Gov plans deep cuts to programs and fed help
Marisa Lagos,Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Friday, January 8, 2010

(01-08) 12:15 PST Sacramento --

- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today called for $8.5 billion in cuts to state worker's wages, health and human services and prisons and $6.9 billion in new revenue from the federal government to help close a projected $20 billion deficit.

The governor also said he would shift about $4.5 billion in funds to close the budget gap, essentially relying on the kind of gimmicks he promised to do away with when he swept into office seven years ago.

He declared a fiscal emergency to force the Legislature to deal immediately with some of the cuts.

He pledged to protect education spending, saying it is too important to the state's economy and future to touch. And he said he will not support tax increases, instead calling for reforms of the state's tax system, saying the "broken" system is at the root of the state's budget woes.

"I know many of these cuts are painful," he said. "Believe me, these are the hardest decisions a government must make, yet there is simply no conceivable way to avoid more cuts and more pain."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/08/BA6B1BFI2B.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0c3VU9gPp

[valerief]

1. I wonder what he's NOT cutting. nt

[fascisthunter]

2. he's not cutting tax breaks for the rich

[valerief]

6. Goes without saying! nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Which tax breaks for the rich? n/t

[DBoon]

14. the cuts in corporate taxes the republicans forced through

billions of dollars in cuts to the likes of Intel, which were the republicans' extortion money for allowing a state budget to pass

[Cleita]

17. The low, low property taxes on their ten to fifteen million dollar+ mansions. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Yeah, Ahnuld actually doesn't like prop 13 all that much.

And it's not like he can do anything to change it.

[Cleita]

21. That's because he has no leadership and no control over his own party.

He could probably get Democrats on board but won't. He doesn't need to roll back prop 13 anyway, only parts of it.

[Luminous Animal]

29. He brags about thwarting attempts to modify it on his website.

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/print-version/press-release/157/

"Protecting Prop. 13: Gov. Schwarzenegger has fought every effort to raise taxes including efforts to gut California's landmark Proposition 13 which protects homeowners from losing their homes to skyrocketing property taxes."

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Deep cuts to prisons would open the door for privatization of prisons for the sake of public safety.

Wonder how much stock he owns in those corporations.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Every time California has a budget crisis the prisons have been protected.

Everyone bitches about this constantly. Now that he's proposing cutting their budget, as many here have advocated, it's for some nefarious purpose.

[ThomCat]

31. It is long past time for him to cut prisons.

This is the one cut I agree with. California has been the leader in imprisoning far too many people seemingly as a growth industry.

I hope this forces the state to reduce incarceration rates down to something reasonable. Though to truly do that I think they would also have to purge a hell of a lot of the judges that participated in convicting damned near everyone and doling out high sentences for every trivial offense.

[CreekDog]

4. A few years ago he said, "I don't want to take away cat food from old people"

apparently he's rethought that. :eyes:

[napi21]

5. Why isn't he proposing tax increases on the wealthy? He can't run again

so he doesn't have to worry about that and he has the wealthiest group of people living in Ca! The Pubs really have to get over their no new taxes thing! When services the people want, need, and ask for can't be provided because of lack of money, that means taxes have to be increased!

[Xithras]

15. Two reasons...

1) California already has a structural tax problem because of over-reliance on taxes on the rich. California's budget is already the most heavily wealth-tax oriented in the nation. The problem? Rich people's income tends to fluctuate far more than middle class incomes. That's why California's tax revenues have dropped around 20% while the states economy contracted only 3% overall...a huge chunk of our tax base is dependent on wealthy people who tend to make their money through investments and the stock market. When the speculative markets aren't doing well, the income of the wealthiest dries up, and tax revenues plunge. Everyone knows and admits this in Sacramento, but nobody wants to do ANYTHING to fix it.

2) The Rethugs hold an axe over the budget anyway. You can't pass a tax increase without their support, and the last time a Republican leader tried to compromise on tax increases, the rest of his party retaliated by stripping him of his leadership and committee positions, and then threatening to have the party fund a challenger in the next election. The Republicans in Sacramento run a tight ship, and no dissenting views are permitted. They have stated in the past that they'll see Sacramento shut down before they'll let another tax increase through. Their political ideology is more important to them than the overall good of the state.

[napi21]

20. From everything I've heard, they should repeal the Prop that froze realestate Taxes.

It sounded like a great idea at the time, but it's been abused by a lot of corporate owned buildings who sort of transfer them but don;t sell them and the taxes remail absurdly low! I don't know how to make that happem but I remember when Calif. used to be the ideal place to live! A college Edu. was for the most part free, and most people who lived there were very happy. NOW, most are unhappy and are leaving!

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. Great. Where will all the people live who are foreclosed on by the state?

I am so goddamned fucking sick of people who think Californians have infinite cash with which to pay taxes.

And hey, genius? Any new house that was built or which changed hands during the Bubble IS being taxed at
full value. Which covers a LOT of real estate.

But I digress: tell me where the hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't afford their nex tax bills are
supposed to live when their respective counties slap on tax liens.

I'm waiting.

[napi21]

26. The big tax bucks are from commercial buildings that were

transferred but not sold so they retained the tax status of many years ago. I'm not trying to go after the individuals. I think those who benefited from that prop because of unintended consequences should pay up! I don't live in Ca. I've been there several times and I honestly think it's a great place! I couldn't afford to live in the areas I visited, but I think if the residents demand specific services, they also have to realize they have to pay for them.

[Xithras]

30. Actually, you just on one of this states biggest problems.

California voters never met a bond issue they didn't love. There's a real disconnect with the average California voter...they want the state to provide everything, but don't want to pay for it. For a long time, we've managed to get away with it by simply taxing the rich, but we've done is so much that our revenue sources are screwed.

I don't often agree with the Gropenator (though I am a fan of his environmental policies, which are more left-wing than many Democrats), but he made a very good point in his speech. There are 38 million people in California, and yet our tax system is so heavily weighted towards taxing the rich that more than half our income tax revenue comes from only 144,000 people. It's doesn't take a Harvard economist to see the problem with that structure, and how fundamentally unstable it is. Democratic leaders have admitted it, Republican leaders have admitted it, and economists have been screaming about it for years.

The problem is, nobody wants to be the one who says "The rich are paying their share in California, now it's time for everybody else." That would be political suicice. At the same time, nobody wants to increase taxes on the corps either, because many of them are ALREADY fleeing California for cheaper locales, and the politicians are worried about exacerbating job losses.

I have no solutions, and many people have posited that there really aren't any. We'll just keep stumbling along until the state implodes.

I do need to point one thing out though: The budget shortfall they're currently discussing for the current year works out to about $50 a month per person in this state. For most people, an extra $50 a month tax bill would be rather painful.

[napi21]

27. The big tax bucks are from commercial buildings that were

transferred but not sold so they retained the tax status of many years ago. I'm not trying to go after the individuals. I think those who benefited from that prop because of unintended consequences should pay up! I don't live in Ca. I've been there several times and I honestly think it's a great place! I couldn't afford to live in the areas I visited, but I think if the residents demand specific services, they also have to realize they have to pay for them.

[napi21]

28. The big tax bucks are from commercial buildings that were

transferred but not sold so they retained the tax status of many years ago. I'm not trying to go after the individuals. I think those who benefited from that prop because of unintended consequences should pay up! I don't live in Ca. I've been there several times and I honestly think it's a great place! I couldn't afford to live in the areas I visited, but I think if the residents demand specific services, they also have to realize they have to pay for them.

[LiberalEsto]

7. Maybe they should cut the governor's job

Think of all the money they would save.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Wow, that would save a whopping... zero dollars.

Ahnuld doesn't accept his state salary. I guess it'd save some money on transport and security. Gee, that's gotta be twenty billion right there. :eyes:

[LiberalEsto]

13. I didn't know that.

So sue me.

[louis c]

32. kick

[ixion]

8. federal aid is NOT "revenue"

The governor said he will seek $6.9 billion in funding Washington, D.C., that he claims the state is owed.

Republicans love welfare, if the money is going somewhere they can pilfer it.

[pinto]

9. Devastating proposals -

more from the same Chronicle piece -

The governor said he will seek $6.9 billion in funding Washington, D.C., that he claims the state is owed. But because there is no guarantee California will receive that money, the governor warned of steeper cuts - including to a welfare to work program, mental health services, Medi-Cal, employee salaries and trial courts- if the federal government doesn't grant California the funds. And, he said, he will eliminate many social safety nets, including the IHSS program and Healthy Families, if those federal dollars aren't approved.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/08/BA6B1BFI2B.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0c3VU9gPp

And I've read elsewhere that the State prison guards' union is already geared up to challenge any cuts to their budget. ~ pinto

[chelsea0011]

16. Is there a Lt. Governor in Ca? If it's like Massachusetts, they could cut

the job entirely and everything associated with it and no one would notice any differences.

[flamingdem]

18. Thanks for ruining California Arnold nt

[Cleita]

22. To be fair it was Republicans before him, starting with Ronald Reagan, and

continuing with Howard Jarvis and Pete Wilson that pretty much ruined CA before Arnold got to be their patsy and will be left holding the bag.

[louis c]

23. Kick

[Romulox]

24. Hey Arnie: GOTSTA LEGALIZE IT! nt