Posted on 01/27/2006 7:56:13 PM PST by FairOpinion
It will be months before lawmakers approve the next state budget, but the Senate Budget Committee Thursday took an early stand against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to withhold a cost-of-living increase for needy disabled, blind and elderly Californians.
Schwarzenegger's $125.6 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1 would save $233 million over the next two years by withholding federal funds intended as a raise for recipients of a cash assistance program known as Supplemental Security Income.
"I intend to have no part of this proposition," Sen. Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata, chair of the budget committee, said at the panel's first meeting this year. "That's a signal we're going to send early."
The committee quickly amended the budget bill, Senate Bill 1129, to rescind the cuts, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans voting against it.
Budget committees in both the Senate and Assembly usually wait until after hearings have been held on budget issues before changing the budget bill. They then send the amended bills to the full Senate and Assembly for votes. The deadline for passing a budget is June 15.
But, Chesbro said, Democrats wanted to send the message that the SSI cuts were "dead on arrival" in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at shns.com ...
Put the blame where it belongs, on the Democrats, instead of attacking Arnold and wanting a Dem governor, who will really show you what spending and government control is like.
Also note: "Elizabeth Hill, the Legislature's nonpartisan budget adviser, testified Thursday that estimates based on early income-tax payments for 2005 show state revenues will be even higher than the governor projected when he released his budget Jan. 10. "
LMAO,, picking on the weak , elderly and infirm, now that's a real republican ideal to shoot for.
"LMAO,, picking on the weak , elderly and infirm, now that's a real republican ideal to shoot for."
===
Well, he tried to cut the school funding, and all you "faux-conservatives" voted against Prop. 76. The next thing that can be cut is entitlements, and when he is cutting those, you object, just like a good little Democrat reading the Dem talking points.
You're so off the mark, it must hurt to be you.
.. but that doesn't stop your perpetual droolarama for a liberal in a Republican suit.
"Elizabeth Hill, the Legislature's nonpartisan budget adviser, testified Thursday that estimates based on early income-tax payments for 2005 show state revenues will be even higher than the governor projected when he released his budget Jan. 10. "
--
Please refrain from encouraging the Gub to spend spend spend more more more.. ever hear of paying down debt instead of running it up?
No, I didn't think so. Neither has the Gub, unfortunately.
Helloooooo!
The whole article is about the LEGISLATURE wanting to spend more and again, you attack Arnold, which will just give more power to the Dems, to do exactly what you claim you are against.
aawwwwww,, like the legislature will oppose him as long as they get compenstated with other new spending or locking in raises for the unions. He ought to be fighting that but
Now he's one of them, not that he really ever wasn't, imo.
and he prides himself as a marketer.. LOL
If I'm reading correctly ...
Schwarzenegger's $125.6 billion spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1
..there is at least one refernce to the governor's proposed, record spending spree for FY2006-2007.
To achieve lower spending, the budget had to first propose lower spending.
Given this most basic process, one can only conclude that lower spending was not the objective.
You should know very well, that the main reason for the budget is the madated spending on schools. Since you voted against Prop. 76, which would have curtailed the mandatory spending on schools and made the government "live within their means" you are NOT part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Please correct me but doesn't the Austrian's budget propose education funding well above Prop 98 mandates?
Wrong. We've covered this ground before, FO. One more time.
2006-07 Overview of the GovernorÂ’s BudgetProposition 98
Spends $1.7 billion more than required by the minimum guarantee in 2006‑07. This fully funds growth and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), and provides an additional $1.2 billion in program spending, including equalization of school district funding, restorations of COLAs foregone in prior years, mandates, and teacher retention initiatives. In addition, provides $428 million in new spending for K-12 after school programs as required by Proposition 49.
Since you voted against Prop. 76, which would have curtailed the mandatory spending on schools and made the government "live within their means" you are NOT part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Prop 76 would have authorized bonds and deferred more expenses into the future. And, it would not have reduced spending, according to the Prop 76 campaign manager:
"The key is not to crank government spending down," said Tom Campbell, Schwarzenegger's former finance director, who left the post to campaign for the initiative. "It's just to spend no more than we have."
San Diego Union-Tribune, October 21, 2005But Campbell said he has looked forward starting in 2006, which is when the measure would take effect, and doesn't believe that the cap would have an impact on state spending until 2013. "That's because we start with three good years of revenue behind us," he said. "It completely depends on what year you start."
San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2005
Have a ques, maybe a stupid one, nonetheless I thought SSI was a federal program not run by states??
http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):
It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and
It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.
It is a Fed funded program, but California has a SSP program that can provide additional funds. This appears to be where the discretionary cuts may be getting made and not necessarily in the SSI benefit. Whence those funds originate?
If someone can provide additional info, Thanks.
I hate this excerpting crap..
This little tidbit was in towards the end of the article as well.
---
McClintock made an unsuccessful attempt to amend the budget bill to remove funding for nearly 5,300 new state jobs the governor has proposed.
Democrats on the committee said they would be reviewing the new positions carefully in hearings to make sure they were necessary.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, said in a telephone interview that only 4,700 of the 5,300 new jobs were for departments controlled by the Schwarzenegger administration. Most of the new positions, he said, were necessary to keep pace with growing demand in the prison system, and to reinforce state safety programs such as inspections of care facilities for children and the elderly.
I had a similar question to stopem's, so I looked it up.
Your take is similar to what I could glean. The cuts are made to the SSP (a state program) in an amount equivalent to the SSI (fed program) COLA increases, thereby leaving the amount of the benefit to the recipient unchanged (in most cases). He proposed the same thing last year and the year before. In 2004, it was reinstated--I'm not sure about last year. Similar suspension of COLA increases for the SSP and for CALWorks have been proposed.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2004/health_ss/hss_19_ssissp_anl04.htm
It's always the democrat idiots in CA. Nobody in their right mind would vote for a democrat governor, just the left loons and they don't have any common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.