CA to become first state with no public assistance?
Published May 31, 2009 @ 08:28AM PT
Obviously, as long as government exists, it will provide some level of public benefit to us all. But Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed budget cuts in California are so deep that they would outright eliminate temporary assistance to needy families (TANF, or "welfare"):
Ending cash assistance for 1.3 million impoverished state residents, for example, would make California the only state with no welfare program.
"Every single first-world nation has a safety net program for children," said Will Lightbourne, Santa Clara County's social services director. "This would return us to the era of Dickens — you'd have to go back to the 19th century to find a comparable proposal."
Dickensian. You know you're living through hard times when your governance is compared to the abject poverty and exploitation of 19th century England. That's rough.
The Governator's not the only bad guy here. Voters rejected ballot proposals last week to balance the budget via tax increases, borrowing and basically moving $$ around to plug holes. California's "direct democracy" has proven so dicey that for the first time in 150+ years, Constitutional reform might actually be in play. But will the state close all its parks, and drop welfare and healthcare and tuition assistance for low-income youth to make this happen? I shudder at the thought.
Photo of a mural from LAMP Community on Skid Row in Los Angeles, taken by lewisha1990. Can Californians come together for economic recovery? How many new households will end up on Skid Row?
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (14)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
Featured Poverty in America Actions
-
-
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
88 People
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
I grew up in California. Considering the tax revolt that got Prop 13 passed back in the late 70's or might have been the early 80's, I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen. Though it doesn't make this right. Part of the problem is that the State's agencies have a very long history of doing things poorly - as in doing them inefficiently, doing them ineptly, doing them with official policies that ensure that things that should be done won't happen (like CPS having at least local policies for a while that required "visible physical evidence" to do any investigating if the reported abuse involved an abuser of "fine upstanding citizenry" as evidenced by membership in the police, medical community, education field or certain other professions) or just plain bad attitude (like the San Joaquin County Human Services worker who incorrectly told me that there weren't any cash aid programs of any sort - including general assistance - for adults - because "adults don't need things like toilet paper or dish soap"). Which means people don't trust those working for the government. Then for years (and it's gotten worse lately) the Government itself has devolved into partisanship where one side will only say "but you can't cut anything, you've got to fix it all by raising taxes and fees" and the other will only say "but you've got to fix it all by cuts, because you can't raise any taxes and fees" - and the impasse has become really set in stone, not just because no one will move, but because of the stance taken by the Governator, but because of the votes required by CA's Constitution and Prop 13 for the budget and taxes...
Add in the long underlying racism that California has been trying to keep quiet and not admit it's got, along with the classism. Throw in the fights of Northern vs. Southern California and Rural vs. Urban California and there's a LOT of discord going on about how California "should" be and even "who should be there". A lot of this stuff factors into the budget fighting too - like the money for L.A.'s and San Francisco's roads vs. money for stuff the farmers want. It's very complicated.
Of course, since assistance programs are (to use one of my Mom's phrases) something no one wants to claim or champion. They're really politically unpalatable. So they get to languish in a dark corner while everyone steals money from their necessities and the poor who are already desperate suffer even more.
Isn't some of this stuff human rights abuses? For sure, wouldn't it be if this happens? I know one thing that's already happened is cutting of funding for mental health care - and mental illness is the leading cause of disability. This alone has left many with no way to access mental health care - which puts them at risk of relapse (and thus at risk of stays in state hospitals or being sent to jail or prison due to episodes) and in some cases may put the community at risk too.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/31/2009 @ 11:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I just want to point out that calling California voters the "bad guys" for voting down the ballot propositions is very simplistic. Yes, some voters voted no because they didn't want the tax increases - but a substantial number of progressives voted no on the measures because we realized that the they would trade a balanced budget this year for spending caps and borrowing that would shackle the state's ability to address poverty, education, homelessness and health care for decades to come (See, for example, what TABOR did to Colorado).
But, that point aside, I agree that California needs constitutional reform, and that the state needs to come together to reject these Dickensian cuts.
Posted by Michele Stillwell on 05/31/2009 @ 12:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, assigning blame is always a bit simplistic, but it usually gets the discussion started!
Posted by Leigh Graham on 05/31/2009 @ 01:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I whole heartedly agree there were about as many reasons as Californias for voting "no" on the many budget propositions. Worth note too, a very large number of Californians, simply did NOT vote. That's kind of why I said a lot what I did about Californians not trusting their government or any part of it - like its agencies, etc. They've long had a bad record even before the Governator. Then too, I grew up in a rural farm town where much of what California did was looked upon with scorn and a raised eyebrow so maybe between that and my own run ins that gave me reasons for distrust of CA's government, I'm extra wary of it.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/31/2009 @ 01:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
People voted it down because he already raised their taxes this year; sales tax, auto registration fees, tobacco tax, gas tax, utility tax, business tax, on and on and on... No one can afford to live here anymore except the rich. Everyone else is struggling and/or already homeless.
Yet the govenator terminator wants to spend the stimulus money on the high speed train... who the %%^* is going to ride that thing when we have been bailing out Amtrak out for years. And when they build it, it wont even come to the Capitol of Sacramento where the politicians could at least ride the darn thing and cut out the per-diem expenses and cars they pay for with our tax money.
And he is going to spend stimulus monies to bring the movie industry here to Sacramento. Who the heck benefits from that. Only the rich actors because extras only make $50 or so. So its not bringing any jobs. It will bring money to the already rich hotel owners.
He is loosing us billions in stimulus money because he cut health care and education.
He has cut the disabled once already in May and plans to cut their paycheck again in July. And who knows what the cuts to Medicare is going to mean to the disabled.
He has cut state workers hours and now it sounds like there will be a cut in pay too.
I don't know what the answer is but I do know the governor is making bad ones and the people in CA can not afford anymore taxes. I cant believe the people elected an actor for governor to begin with! How is it that people would think that being an actor qualifies you to run a state? What were people thinking?
My next question would be where did the money go they collected before the housing bubble burst? And as so called business men of government, why did they not have the COMMON SENSE to know that the bubble was going to burst? I mean bubbles always do.
Bottom line is it is hurting everyone in CA.. businesses are leaving because of taxes, people are leaving, students are going elsewhere, and the homeless keep getting herded further down the road. He also cut our homeless shelters budget by 40%. They cut off welfare and children become homeless and public school system looses more money for non attendance. He cut in-home health care which means they will have to go to hospitals, hospices, and very expensive retirement centers. This will split up a lot of families. (Right now no one wants to hear about immigration reform that reunites illegal immigrant families which means bringing in more immigrants). We can not afford it right now period....
Sorry... I'm really upset about all this crap. And yes.. it is a form of discrimination against the poor and disabled. They barely helped us out when times were good and now they are going to just cut us off. Camps are going to get huge and then it will be harder for them to move us...to hide us from the nations view. California is quickly going to become a third world state.
Posted by Sharon Blasingame on 05/31/2009 @ 02:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Very true Sharon. Then again, many of those who voted no - some of them at least - are of the "no taxes" sort who really need to learn that at least SOME taxes are necessary just for things to function. That's part of what got Prop 13 passed, it's part of why the big "tea bagger" movement, it's why up here in Washington (off topic somewhat I know - but not totally since many here in WA are people who've moved from CA just like I have) keep voting against any and all increases in anything that even MIGHT be a tax or fee. You (general you's here, not addressing anyone in particular) can't complain that nothing is getting done, that there's no money for anything, if you're not willing to pay the necessary taxes and fees for necessary services. And as a side note, similar tax revolts have gotten Washington in a similar (just not as bad or as media popular) fiscal situation.
You're decidedly right though about lack of preparation. Just what on EARTH were they doing when California was decidedly a boom state? The "Tech Boom" was centered in California. Surely the state made some decent income off of that. If not, someone needs to study why not so it doesn't happen again. Surely the state has made some good money off of the entertainment industry that continues to pump out movies, music, TV, etc. If not, someone needs to look into this too. California continues to produce plenty of agricultural products, where's all the money from these? And what IS all this money being spent on if it's NONE of it is being saved AT ALL? Is there rampant fraud or something else going on - surely there's an explanation for the state to be as in the hole as it is. It's got to be more than JUST partisanship.
As to electing actors, you'd think California learned that lesson the first time. After all, California was where Reagan served as Governor long before being elected President. I'm a Democrat, I'm liberal on most issues - but I'd be one of the first to say that Davis wasn't a good governor or a good leader and even *I* could see at least some of the reasons behind the recall effort (it was getting started when I moved). However, electing an actor? Again? Eeep. Surely there was someone else, ANYONE else.
But eventually, this nation - and you may be right that it's going to start in CA - is going to have to admit that they're going to have to deal with we who are poor and their failure to develop an effective assistance program, one that HELPS instead of penalizing us. Why? Because we're not going away and we can't be hidden forever - and soon there'll be too many of us for the current hiding spots.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 05/31/2009 @ 03:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Woody Guthrie's "Doh Re Me" keeps playing in my head as I read this, it is a de ja view all over again.
When people who understand what is needed and set about doing it, government can do a fine job. But when people are devoid of empathy, they will rail about costs no matter what the costs are, and then call for reform that basicly cuts the programs legs off.
Then those people who do not believe in anyone but themselves benefitting anyway point at the programs they maimed and call them inept and needing to be killed. As legislators or administrators this strangling has gone on for a while shifting the burden more to those less able to afford it.
And again instead of shifting it back more legs are cut off till eventually California resembles Somalia unless somebody makes an effort to change the game.
Posted by Bob Danforth on 06/09/2009 @ 09:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That's exactly the problem. Shift the costs and the burden onto the poor because "no one cares" - except of course we who are poor but then of course that goes right back to "no one cares"... Eventually we end up in a mess like we have now that in many ways, in many programs and even more dramatically so in some places than others if it's not a human rights abuse it certainly SHOULD be counted as such.
Why would I state such? Because ultimately what the states are doing is deciding to deny food, medical care and shelter - or the money via cash aid to purchase such - to those who need these things most because the portion of the budget for these programs were among the most (if not THE most) politically expedient things to cut when the budget crunches came - which ultimately paraphrases to budgetary Social Darwinism. It's something along the lines of "we'll cut these programs know this risks letting many of YOU become disabled, more disabled or even to die - simply because at least for now it's cheaper for US". Just how cruel and inhumane has our society - and thus our government - become? Even a society of wolves takes better care of their own than this.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 06/09/2009 @ 10:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Why dont Californias vote Arnold out of office , He isnt doing a good job. And to think he is still in office and people still deals with him. I left California for a good reason.. to many earthquakes and the living there isnt worth it.
I hope they dont cut the welfare out for the americans... because many of those people before they became homeless worked at jobs and payed taxes.
Posted by Lara Nunes on 05/31/2009 @ 11:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There was talk about a year ago of impeaching Arnold but somehow that was silenced quickly. Hmmm
I signed a petition, actually several, but one got a reply from a senator. This is the reply.
"Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns about California's budget deficit, and specifically budget cuts to the state's Supplemental Security Income (SSI) funds.
We heard the voters loud and clear in the May 19 special election. Voters are facing tough times - job losses, home foreclosures, and are financially in a world of hurt. Incomes have taken a big hit. People's tax bills were lower this year as a result. That means the state has much less cash than we anticipated.
We will immediately start to work to make the cuts necessary to bring our already enacted 2009-10 state budget back into balance before the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1. Every day we delay, means deeper cuts will be necessary. We will do the very best job we can to provide the most essential state services with the money we have available. SSI funding has been cut to $850 per month for those eligible, effective July; however, these funds remain higher than the federally required $830 per month. I regret the necessity of decreasing these payments at all, but we have had to make many unfortunate cuts during this budget crisis.
I appreciate the time you took to share your views with me and hope you will continue to keep me informed of your opinions. Please feel free to call my district office at 651-1529 if you have any more questions or concerns."
Sincerely,
DARRELL STEINBERG
President pro Tempore
6th Senate District
Ok ... I am disabled. I received a $47 cut in SSI April 1st. Now this new cut will be another $40 in July or more. My check is always less than they say I'm suppose to get, they deduct something and I don't know what. My check will probably be $830 a month. Big OUCH!! The cost of co-pay on my medicines went up at the same time. And we are not eligible for food stamps in CA, they say food is already figured into our SSI. I don't know what I'm going to do as I have nothing left to cut from my budget, but I still feel blessed that I at least have a roof over my head for now.
I AM outraged they are cutting children off of welfare. They will all become homeless, evictions will ruin their credit and they will not be able to get future housing. Housing and Urban Development Dept. (HUD's) section 8 program (which helps low income people by paying a portion of their rent) will not help anyone who has had an eviction nor will they help someone without an income. What are these poor children suppose to do?
MY SOLUTION: As part of the budget cuts, they are going to close State parks here in CA, most of which are campgrounds. Maybe they will at least allow some of the homeless families to camp there, they wont let them camp anywhere else. If this could happen then we could station some food closets and other necessities to the State parks for them. Most all of them are equipped with toilets and showers and most are on lakes or rivers. They could allow them to fish for FREE and grow community gardens. They are going to need some place to camp and they will need some tents, sleeping bags, cooking stoves, solar flash lights, etc. which we could probably get WalMart, Target or other department stores to donate. As for garbage, they could compost (for their gardens), recycle (money for some necessities) which they could have one commercial recycle company per park.
What could be the States objection to this? When they broke up Tent City here in Sacramento their excuses were lack of sanitation i.e. showers and toilets. But a lot of it had to do with residents in the area did not want them in their sight. State parks are not in residential neighborhoods therefore out of sight.
If anyone could add ways that this State Park for the Homeless could be self-sufficient/self-sustaining or green, please add to this. I want to start a petition as soon as they say they are closing the parks.
Posted by Sharon Blasingame on 06/07/2009 @ 11:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Herding people into relatively remote locations to sequester them like that is possibly among the more unfortunate, even dangerous, ideas. Please think it through further.
Posted by SlumJack Homeless on 06/08/2009 @ 08:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It would be safer than sleeping on the river with no toilets, no fresh water, and no showers and constantly being raided by police. To my understanding, the old "Tent City" that was here in Sacramento that got national attention was on top of an old dump that they say was toxic. So I dont see how camping a State camp grounds could be more dangerous.
Posted by Sharon Blasingame on 06/09/2009 @ 11:53AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I really feel what is happening in California is Social Genocide.
First, cutting the poor off of medical treatment, monies for any housing, food stamps etc, creates populations that bind together in tent cities etc. In third world countries you see hundreds of thousands living in major cities on hill sides. Crime goes up, illness is rampant among all... And then there is migration. If you think that the masses who have nothing can't or won't move into your neighborhood think again. A cut in police and other services in California then peaceful people who are just living in poverty will not be a priority. However, rape, hate crimes and other things that are happening in these communities go unchecked creating a new generation of children of disrespect or ill trust to our government. Look at South America, Peru, Argentina, Chile, in the last 25 years. Brazil has turned some things around through education, but California is cutting that too, education of our youth is a priority. If California goes down the tubes, it will effect the whole U.S., economically, politically, and socially. I have seen so many hate groups forming because many believe to much is given to immigrants. My parents were immigrants in the 1920's, I have always believed in immigration, but we have quotas per country per ethnicity, they have been in placed for years. However, illegal immigration is such a touchy subject and needs to be addressed. With services being cut to the poor and disabled creates anger and bias. I paid my taxes, and got sick. I didn't have a choice about working, no medical clearance and no one will hire you. Paralyzed in parts of your body they see their health care cost for the company rising. The system boxes myself and these people in. I could speak and write a book on what I have researched and experienced with government programs, however, something is better than nothing. Come July how many will have nothing and who will care, and who is listening, and who will do anything to help or make a change?! If there isn't anything in it for "them", who ever "they" are, nothing gets done, and bottom line if it's not effecting their lives, their home, their family, Politicians don't care. Social Genocide...
Posted by Marianne Kuzminskiene on 06/15/2009 @ 10:33PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"equal justice for all".
We the People:
are entitled to by the U.S. Constitution to every "right" in which is stated, and in "equal" to all American citizens, if you not a "MOVIE STAR" you are NOT a 2nd class citizen, and you and your family and children have "all the rights" as anyone else in the U.S. as American Citizens to have "equal rights" in all matters of life!
Please read the Constitution, obtain a Free Copy, or download-print one for your family members, and your children, to always "remember" "we are all created equal".
Have a Good Day!
Ms.Bland
Posted by Jennifer Bland on 09/01/2009 @ 08:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.