CA's Budget Shuts Down over Fingerprinting the Poor
Published July 07, 2009 @ 05:46AM PT

Courtesy of Felix Salmon at Reuters, I see California's plan to issue IOUs goes a little something like this:
People who will receive IOUs:
- The aged, blind or disabled who get grants
- Those receiving temporary assistance for basic family needs
- Those in drug prevention, treatment and recovery
- The developmentally disabled
- Those being treated for mental health
- Small business vendors
Folks who will continue to be paid:
- Univ. of Cal. employees
- Public Employees Retirement System
- Legislators and their staff and appointees
- Judges
- Department of Corrections employees
- Institutional Health Care Service providers
Apparently there are laws against not paying schools or state employees. (That's slick!) And no doubt some of the admin and support staff at any of these bottom entities need to feed families or themselves. True perhaps even for some legislators...maybe (financial hardship would not be the case for the vast majority of US Congress, for ex). But really?? The government brings CA to its knees then doesn't have the courtesy to forgo their own paychecks while stiffing the poor and disabled? Damn.
Anyway, I don't know if it gets more explicitly callous than this:
In California’s misery, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has found some opportunity in standing his ground. Mr. Schwarzenegger has not only refused to sign off on stopgap measures like those proposed this week by Democratic lawmakers, but has also demanded that lawmakers adopt substantive changes in policy as part of any budget deal.
Democrats indicated Thursday that they were beginning to submit to Mr. Schwarzenegger’s demands, taking proposed tax increases that he opposes off the table as they worked to close a budget gap estimated to have grown to $27 billion. [...]
Mr. Schwarzenegger, weighing the discomfort and embarrassment of the i.o.u.’s against a short-term budget deal, apparently reached the conclusion that the i.o.u.’s were a price worth paying to force policy changes he pushed as early as 2005, even if it meant the budget crisis dragged on.
Among the changes Mr. Schwarzenegger insists be included in a budget agreement are the fingerprinting of recipients of certain state services for the poor and infirm, tighter checks on the job status of those who receive welfare benefits and changes to the state pension program.
I wonder if this helps the White House finally get the depth of our economic black hole. (Are black holes deep?)
(Photo by schumachergirl1956 of Schwarzenegger at his 2003 recall victory; what The Daily Show might call our "moment of zen")
Share this Post
Related Posts
Comments (4)
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.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email



















What is the purpose of fingerprinting all the recipients of services? I agree with some of the legislators that it might be appropriate for PROVIDERS, after all, that's a part of a standard back ground check for a criminal history and ID verification which seems like it ought to be mandatory for these sorts of workers. But just because you're getting certain types of help?!? Seems like this would be a major civil rights issue and one UGLY court fight. I know that if *I* lived in CA, I'd be looking for someone to go to court for me if this passed and in my case I'm pretty sure it'd be a civil rights issue since it would be on the grounds of disability (it would be because of my receiving mental health treatment for a primary disability). California has already, once (back in the Great Depression), lost a major case in the Supreme Court about what they tried do to those in poverty - and specifically it was about keeping the poor out of the state. Obviously any lessons learned have been forgotten.
Also, with what's happening to the state's credit, I don't see how on earth the Governator (too lazy at the moment to look up how to spell his name and don't have enough respect for him either) expects to get out of this without raising the state's income SOMEHOW (i.e. increasing taxes) or how the legislature expects to avoid cutting SOMETHING. Then too, the legal requirement for a 2/3 vote to pass anything sets the stage for these sorts of would-be-comical-if-it-were-not-for-reality situations over the state budgets...so maybe a reworking of state law would help.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 07/07/2009 @ 12:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The sad thing here is that in addition to sending IOUs to counties to cover their welfare costs, the State is also withholding payments to social service agencies that are funded by medi cal. I work for a counseling agency that serves high risk emotionally disturbed children. We recently had to close our doors and go on temporary lay off.
Over 50 employees who are now having to collect unemployment and over 135 needy kids who are not being helped so could eventually cost the state a whole lot more money if they end up in out of home care.
We have people that may lose their homes over this! We are waiting on the State getting their budget passed so they will start paying us again! And Schwartzeneger is holding out over finger printing?!
Posted by Kathy Cullison on 07/17/2009 @ 01:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Should also add that our nearly bankrupted State that is causing people to get laid off because they are paying their bills just forked out $4 million for the Michael Jackson funeral. Yup they've got their priorities straight.
Posted by Kathy Cullison on 07/17/2009 @ 01:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No kidding about that. Can fund a public event/media circus, can hold out on a budget over "savings" that require implementing a giant fingerprinting system AND a whole new computer system that MIGHT find at least SOME fraud while bankrupting untold numbers of individuals, families and agencies and putting many at risk because they at least temporarily (potentially permanently - depends on how long this fiasco continues) can't get one or more necessary services because the service provider is being paid in IOUs that can't be cashed anywhere.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 07/17/2009 @ 02:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.