P.S. Hi, HB! ;-)
Posted on 01/09/2004 1:09:48 PM PST by TheDon
By TOM CHORNEAU, Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) unveiled a $99.1 billion budget plan Friday and proposed cutting billions of dollars from public health and welfare programs to help pay for it.
AP Photo
Without cuts or higher taxes, California is expected to face a $14 billion deficit by June 30, 2005, the end of the upcoming fiscal year.
Schwarzenegger did not include any new taxes in his budget plan Friday, but in addition to the cuts, he requested higher state park fees and tuition increases of as much as 40 percent for college students.
"For the past five years, the politicians have made a mess of California's budget," Schwarzenegger said. "Now it's time to clean it up."
The biggest hits are aimed at the state's Medi-Cal program, which would lose close to $900 million next year under the governor's proposal. The state's program to bring welfare recipients into the work force is also targeted in his plan with a $800 million cut.
City and county governments, already upset by the loss of about $4 billion they were expecting from a car tax increase that Schwarzenegger repealed, also would lose out.
The governor proposed taking an additional $1.3 billion that the local governments are counting on and instead use it to pay state expenses. The move is a shift from Schwarzenegger's previous pledge to protect the local governments, though he said Friday that he would still find a way to replace the lost car tax revenue.
"We need to know what else is piled on top of it," said Pat Leary of the California State Association of Counties.
Schwarzenegger's budget is built on a rosy economic picture next year, projecting $2.9 billion in additional tax revenue to be available in 2004-2005.
Getting support for the spending plan won't be easy. Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, have said the burden of the state's fiscal crisis shouldn't fall on the poor and disabled.
The hit to public health under Schwarzenegger's plan would include caps on enrollments for the state's health insurance program for the poor and elderly and the elimination of some medical benefits for the poor and disabled.
University students would see higher fees under the proposal, with undergraduates paying 10 percent more, graduate students paying 40 percent more, and middle-income students being offered less financial aid.
Community college students would be asked to pay $8 per unit more — from $18 per unit to $26.
Some social service advocates say tax increases should be used instead of spending cuts to solve the state's problems.
"I expect that there will still be hard hits on health programs that will hurt children and working families very hard," said Catherine Teare, spokeswoman for the Oakland-based advocacy group, Children Now. "I just don't see how this all gets done."
According to estimates updated this week, the state will have a deficit of nearly $27 billion by June 2005 — created by an existing deficit of $12.6 billion run up over the past three years and a projected shortfall of $14 billion by the June 30, 2005.
Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have put a $15 billion bond issue on the March that would pay off the existing deficit, but the $14 billion projected deficit for next year remains.
A key underpinning of his plan to balance the state's budget without raising taxes had been backed by educators, who agreed to accept $2 billion less next year than they are owed.
But even if legislators approve Schwarzenegger's budget plan, which will be revised in May, it will mean little if voters don't approve the $15 billion bond deal in March. So far, administration officials said, early polls indicate voters don't like the measure and may not pass it.
P.S. Hi, HB! ;-)
I think he just got mixed up with a bad crowd... kids these days, sheesh LOL
HB, resist the peer pressure! Just say no to thugs! ;-)
Maybe no cuts in the overall budget but two sources - The L.A. Times and the Sacramento Bee - say he is proposing to cut Medical payments to doctor's by as much as 15%.
If such cuts are implemented across the board you can expect to see many rural hospitals shut their doors...and other significant and nasty changes in our health-care system.
I know. I'm arguing the opposite.
Hb
No I don't. So I'm saying cut out the servive fees.
Like Arnold said, it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. I agree with him.
Hb
Because some out-of-staters that relocated here were a little slow when we asked them for help to hang Gray Davis from a political rope. After Gray Davis said he wanted to give the illegal aliens drivers licenses and triple our car taxes, they got the hint and decided to help string Davis up.
Are you listening George Bush?
The greatest state of the greatest country on earth!
California's governors don't pass legislation. They sign it into law. While the Governor of California does have some constitutionally limited authority under the executive order to affect state spending it is temporary to his term in office. Neither the governor nor the legislature has "passed" or is in the process of "passing" any legislation which puts a statutory cap on the budget.
While Schwarzenegger has publicly professed a desire to reduce spending, the proposed budget he submitted today offers a very small increase in state spending over our current budget. The spending plan he proposed today is $99.144B, not $76B.
One more time I welcome you to the California topic but your lack of understanding of the issues is beginning to get stale and a bit irritating. In addition there is every indication that little effort is being made to understand these issues or worse yet, the pattern of Republican Party disruptor is emerging.
Second, these programs have been growing at rates in the double digits every year for the last 15 years.
To say that you can't slow the growth or even hold it to even (freeze) or even push a REAL CUT (you know, less money than last year - something politicians do not understand) is ludicrous.
Also, all you need to do is audit these programs and do the cost/benefit ratio and you'll find most of the increases in spending went not to those needing help (which I don't understand how they grew so fast during the 90's when spending really got out of control while Bill Clinton gave us the greatest economy in the history of the universe), but went to the bureaucracy and the hiring of new government employees.
For goodness sakes, they still pay little old ladies to push elevator buttons in the state capital building in Sacremento.
And here's the picture to prove it:
Yes, it is. The school district says "we need X amount of dollars to pay for the soccer team" so people's property taxes are set to include the amount for the team, including uniforms. The school district gets the money from taxes, then the school district decides to quit buying the uniforms from this fund, and instead charges each player for the uniforms.
Question: Where did the tax money that each team memeber's parents and every other community member pay in property taxes for the uniforms go?
And if what was being collected wasn't enough to support the team, and they had to collect more money from the team members themselves, then SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING WENT UP. They spent what they already got in taxes, PLUS what they charged the students. If they are going to charge the students, then the taxes ALREADY collected for the uniforms should be refunded. Otherwise, the people who were already charged for the uniforms that are now being paid for by the members are getting less for their money, or in other words, paying the same for less service. A tax increase.
It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem.
See?
Hb
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.