Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Critical responses from Democratic Leaders and Progressive Groups to Governor’s Proposals For Dealing with Deficit

The Governor’s release Thursday of the May revised budget figures, showing $21.3 billion in new deficits. His proposed solution included a package of cuts to fill the $15.4 billion shortfall and then additional contingencies if Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E fail on next week’s special election ballot.

He said, “To look for new revenues is out of the question.” Instead, his package includes cuts, borrowing, selling of state-owned properties, eliminating some state agencies and boards, accelerating revenues, shifting funds, and laying off 5,000 state employees.

Legislative leaders and a variety of advocacy groups had a range of responses to the budget proposal.

The Democratic leadership responded quickly.

Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said:

“The message from the Governor’s May Revise is clear. California’s budget deficit continues to grow because of a National and International economic crisis that can be felt in every classroom, boardroom and unemployment office in the state. While Californians will have a chance to affect our budget deficit in next week’s election, it doesn’t change the fact that there are difficult choices ahead for this Legislature and the Governor. Regardless of what happens on May 19, on May 20 we will begin to respond to this fiscal challenge swiftly and responsibly, doing the best we can with the money we have.”

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass:

“The deep cuts included in both of Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposals reflect the impact the extended national recession continues to have on California. We have consistently said that all issues must be on the table, so we will closely examine each and every one of the Governor's proposals announced today. We understand the people of California don’t care about politics-as-usual when it comes to solving the budget, and we will reject any stunts or gimmicks that get in the way of serious solutions.

"Californians are frustrated and families who depend on services from the state --whether schools or firefighting or health care for children – are worried. We will work to solve the budget deficit in a way that protects a safety net for the most vulnerable among us, acknowledges the fact we need an educated workforce to keep our economy going, and respects the strains all Californians are facing in this economy.”

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell decried the proposed cuts to public education:

“The two budget proposals the Governor released today offer a choice between devastating and horrific cuts to public schools. I am heartsick at the prospect that public schools in California are being asked to absorb between $800 million and $1.4 billion in the final month of the traditional school year, and then an additional $1.6 billion to $4.2 billion in the next school year. If approved, these proposed cuts would be added to the $11.6 billion in cuts to schools approved last February.

“Cuts of this magnitude will have immediate negative impacts in every school in our state. Class sizes will increase. Fewer of the 27,886 teachers who received pink slips will be retained. The ratio of students to school counselors and school nurses will widen further. Arts, music, and career technical education will be slashed. The pain of these cuts will be felt in thousands of other ways, large and small, in classrooms around our state. I am gravely concerned that these devastating cuts will interrupt our progress in improving student achievement. I am also worried that cuts this deep to California’s public schools will jeopardize our maintenance-of-effort commitment to U.S. Department of Education and put our federal stimulus money at risk.

“This is exactly the wrong conversation we should be having at this time. In order to protect the economic viability of our state, it is more critical than ever that we help all students meet their full potential, close the achievement gap, and ensure that all California students are prepared to compete in the global economy. We should be talking about doing what it takes to educate a workforce with 21st century skills.

“In order to do this we must fix the structural problems in our state budgeting process. We must consider fundamental change. I have proposed and continue to support SCA 6 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), which helps communities raise funds for local schools by lowering to 55 percent the threshold for approval of local parcel taxes. I also continue to call for a majority vote budget to resolve the gridlock that has plagued Sacramento for too many years. We must all be open to thinking differently and put the long-term needs of California citizens above special interest groups and politicians.”

Assemblymember Tom Torlakson also expressed concern about the impact on education:

“Cuts and borrowing is a double blow to our children. The cuts laid out today could under fund our schools by another $5.3 billion, and borrowing will saddle our kids with our debt for years to come. We need a responsible and balanced solution that includes revenue to pay for the things we care about. Our children cannot be asked to shoulder the burden of failed budget policy year after year."

Assemblymember Noreen Evans, Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee said:

“The Governor’s budget plans are a sobering reminder of what is at stake next Tuesday. There is much to dislike in his proposals. But they lay out the potential scope of the sacrifices ahead. We have no easy choices left to balance our budget, especially after six years of sustained cuts.

If the Governor’s proposals were adopted wholesale, it would be very difficult to be a child in California in the coming years. Most of his proposed cuts adversely affect children. He throws 225,000 children off the Healthy Families insurance program, removes 300,000 children from the dental disease prevention care program, and cuts K-12 education to the point that the school year will be reduced and teachers will be laid off. He also eliminates the poison control system. What California parent hasn’t called that phone number in a panic?

I look forward to working with the Governor to craft a budget that solves our budget crisis fairly. Our circumstances are dire and require visionary leadership. Our challenge is to preserve the values that have shaped this state. This is not a time to bring out the wrecking ball and demolish what has made California great.”
Four groups opposing Proposition 1A had a press availability following the Governor’s release of his May revise. The California Progress report caught up with them.

Gary Passmore Executive Director of the Congress of California Seniors told the Progress Report: "I feel like the Governor's doing another bait and switch with the voters of California. He talks about a new terrible deficit and then proposes that we vote for Prop 1A that doesn't contain a dime to deal with his deficit. To me his announcements today are just another reflection of what a failure the budget deal in February was. It's already $21 billion out of kilter. The solutions that he proposed don't even begin to cover it. I feel like we've been down this road before--more costly special elections and no solutions. I'm not surprised that the voters are a little cynical and getting ballot weary."

Dennis Smith Secretary-Treasurer of the California Federation of Teachers: "The Governor's budget is proposing to cut billions and billions more from the same time not even raising the idea that oil companies could be taxed at the pump or at the wellhead. Cigarette companies, the sales tax could be broadened. He's talking about all of these issues that are off the table just because he says so. Yet at the same time, he'll cut five billion more for public schools which are already at 48th in the nation and then touting prop 1A as the answer when in fact prop 1A does not to solve this issue."

Lillian Taiz President of the California Faculty Association: "I'm in higher education in the California State University and we're already in a hole. Our main concern is if Proposition 1A passes, which puts no more funding into the next two years at all, not a dime, not a penny. What 1A will do is seal our fate for years and years to come. The Governor has just made another hundreds of millions of dollars more in cuts to the California State Universities system. If 1A passes, we'll be stuck there for the foreseeable future. So a state whose economy will eventually recover and is going to need a million more folks with bachelor's degrees than we're capable of producing right now, that spells a real disaster for our budget in years to come."

Anthony Wright Executive Director of Health Access California: "Just to focus on the cuts, they are a magnitude that we just can't fathom what those cuts would look like in terms of eligibility. It's hundreds of thousands of people losing coverage. He's right that they are very bad and the question is what is the choice that we're going to make. He says absolutely not, that we're not going to look at new revenues. But not looking at new revenues means ultimately that we are making much deeper cuts and turning away literally hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in federal money.

"The scale of the cuts is so large that they don't detail themselves what those cuts would actually mean in terms of the human impact because it's hard to figure how you make that level of cut."

There was also a strong response to an announced plan to commute the prison sentences of 38,000 inmates and release them before their time is fully served. The Governor is proposing the early release to cut cost if ballot measures are rejected by voters in the May 19 special election.

“If the Governor goes forward with this proposal, it would be a crime wave waiting to happen,” Majority Leader Torrico said. “We need to at least make sure that our law enforcement officers have some tools and resources to maintain public safety in the wake of 38,000 former inmates being released back onto the streets. Providing law enforcement with the ability to perform search and seizure of these early released inmates is one necessary small step to help them protect the public and keep our neighborhoods safe. Allowing search and seizure as the sole condition of parole will minimize the damage. But we should not be fooled – releasing the inmates would harm public safety.”

Trying to balance the budget with steps that would jeopardize the public is not a responsible solution to our fiscal crisis, Torrico said.

Posted on May 15, 2009

Comments

Lets Stop taking from schoos. I feel like we are constantly shooting ourselves in the foot! Education empowers our children. I keep on hearing how letting out low level immates is going to endanger to public....They are going to get out anyways! This train of thought just lets you see HOW PRISONS DON"T WORK and how the public don't believe that individuals that go in come out BETTER people. And you want to continue to take away from EDUCATION and NOT prison! Why spend BILLIONS if people don't feel it is working! (I am talking about the low-level, non violet immates- who represent more then half of the prison population)

Please someone write about this!!!It just shows you how powerful the prison union is. Does no one else see this?

Posted by: sherm65 at May 15, 2009 07:12 AM

Here’s a one shot summary of everything that is 100% verifiably TRUE about First 5 and Prop 1D (from IRS docs, state audited financials and the First 5 databases)

For starters:

First 5 has $2 BILLION+ ONLY because it took 2 years+ for most of them to do their strategic plan AND they were not allowed to spend the funds coming in until they did.

It was NOT due to good planning! They were forced to save it and spend it slowly per their strategic plans. There is NO budget impact because they will use what they have in the bank to fund the 5 years of temporary sharing that they are being asked to do.

So, who can a person believe at FIRST 5 ?

1. Not First 5 commissioners, since IMO they “self deal”. For a clear example, check out Riverside First 5, whose Commissioners raked in 75%+ of all program funds in FY 07/08 – at least one resigned – and they had to restructure! See www.pe.com for more info. Julia Glick was the reporter. Check out your local First 5 to see just how true this is!

2. Not the First 5 lobbyist, Sherry Novick. She received over $1 MILLION of First 5 funds - $200K of which went into her pension account - IRS Form 990s say so! If Prop 1D passes, it cuts her off from receiving any new funds.

ALSO – audited financials show that First 5 does NOT spend responsibly:

1. First 5 spent over $100 MILLION on private evaluation consultants!

They are on track to spend $500 MILLION on evaluation within 15 years

And $1 BILLION+ within 25 years! Where’s the beef? Where’s the results? Nada!

Even WORSE:

First 5 spent $500 MILLION+ on ADULTS in a program called CARES.

They gave Master's degree holders up to $5,000 just to stay in their jobs!

Not a documented penny went to children 0 to 5! This money went up in smoke?!

Can anyone say POOF?

Google “lakin ventura Star deception 1d” OR “melissa prop 1d baby killer smokers” for links to data and more in depth discussion.

Posted by: Yikes 123 at May 15, 2009 09:05 AM

Here’s a one shot summary of everything that is 100% verifiably TRUE about First 5 and Prop 1D (from IRS docs, state audited financials and the First 5 databases)

So, who can a person believe at FIRST 5 ?

ALSO – audited financials show that First 5 does NOT spend responsibly:

1. First 5 spent over $100 MILLION on private evaluation consultants!

They are on track to spend $500 MILLION on evaluation within 15 years

And $1 BILLION+ within 25 years! Where’s the beef? Where’s the results? Nada!

Even WORSE:

First 5 spent $500 MILLION+ on ADULTS in a program called CARES.

They gave Master's degree holders up to $5,000 just to stay in their jobs!

Not a documented penny went to children 0 to 5! This money went up in smoke?!

Can anyone say POOF?

Google “lakin ventura Star deception 1d” OR “melissa prop 1d baby killer smokers” for links to data and more in depth discussion.

Posted by: Yikes 123 at May 15, 2009 09:06 AM

Here’s a one shot summary of everything that is 100% verifiably TRUE about First 5 and Prop 1D (from IRS docs, state audited financials and the First 5 databases)

So, who can a person believe at FIRST 5 ?

ALSO – audited financials show that First 5 does NOT spend responsibly:

1. First 5 spent over $100 MILLION on private evaluation consultants!

They are on track to spend $500 MILLION on evaluation within 15 years

And $1 BILLION+ within 25 years! Where’s the beef? Where’s the results? Nada!

Even WORSE:

First 5 spent $500 MILLION+ on ADULTS in a program called CARES.

They gave Master's degree holders up to $5,000 just to stay in their jobs!

Not a documented penny went to children 0 to 5! This money went up in smoke?!

Can anyone say POOF?

Google “lakin ventura Star deception 1d” OR “melissa prop 1d baby killer smokers” for links to data and more in depth discussion.

Posted by: Yikes 123 at May 15, 2009 09:08 AM

Just found out that my child cannot take advanced courses in high school next year because the school doesn't have the money. These kids only have this year to get the classes they need to get in the college they desire. What are they supposed to do?

Posted by: Sad Mom at May 15, 2009 10:43 AM

Lots of good points. It is going to be tough for all. I do wish the rhetoric on the prisons would stop though. Politicians throw out the "a crime wave in the making if we release 35,000 prisoners early". California releases 10,000 prisoners a month now. Most of these guys are getting out anyway in a few months. Crime will not change. It is just one tactic they always use to try and get gullable voters to vote their way. The only problem is now voters are paying attention. VOTE NO on 1-5, Yes on 6.

Posted by: Morris1 at May 15, 2009 06:36 PM

Trying to balance the budget with steps that would jeopardize the public is not a responsible solution to our fiscal crisis, Torrico said.

This is all garbage! If the govenor would have released these prisoners 2 years ago like he said he was going to do, we would not be letting all these teachers go... But he cracked under presure from all the C.O's and that fraudulent union they belong to, and all the investors that have a interest in the CDC. We should recall the govenor
and apoligize to Mr. Davis

Posted by: November19 at May 16, 2009 09:38 PM

California is spending 2 times as much per student as state Nevada yet we have same result. So do we really need to spend so much money or do we have a bigger problem/issue with our schools. I am all for spending money on school if it would actually bring good results. We got 3 choices 1)Cut everything and spread the cut that will affect everyone 2)Borrow short term loan with federal government cosign on that loan(state credit is to low to be able to do it by them self) 3) Raise taxes.

Posted by: rep at May 17, 2009 08:11 PM

I don't know what the same result means. But I would suggest if you are simply looking at per pupil spending you are leaving a lot out of the equation including differentials in cost of living, median income, and housing prices that would make California more expensive as a baseline than Nevada. Moreover and probably more important is the fact that California is far more diverse than Nevada and therefore it is not surprising that the schooling measured by scores or whatever are going to be relatively lower than Nevada.

In short, i think your comparison is too simplistic to be worthwhile as an assessment and we would need to look much deeper before making such a decision. I would expect it to be more expensive and more difficult to educate student in California all else being equal than in Nevada.

Posted by: Doug at May 17, 2009 08:32 PM

California is far more diverse than Nevada?
If that is a reason that test scores in California are lower, someone needs to rethink the supposed benefits of diversity.

Posted by: Erik Kengaard at May 18, 2009 12:34 PM

Read the article in the New Yorker on the Green Dot Charter schools and start a conversation about just why Green Dot can take on the toughest problems in our education system and get such remarkable results.
I believe it is time to expect our leaders to look at such examples and resolve to look for such innovative ways to clean up the mismanagement of our public funds with more effective programs across the board, establish a budget that is within the means of our citizens, separate "needs" from "wants", and get this mess cleaned up.
There is no excuse for the ridiculous mismanagement from our elected officials!
Vote no to any new taxes, yes to pay caps, until the leadership can demonstrate that they can manage the money they have currently been entrusted with more effectively.
Green Dot's success with our toughest education problems clearly demonstrate that it is not "how much you spend" it is "how wisely you spend!"
SMC

Posted by: SMC at May 18, 2009 09:37 PM

Read the article in the New Yorker on the Green Dot Charter schools and start a conversation about just why Green Dot can take on the toughest problems in our education system and get such remarkable results.
I believe it is time to expect our leaders to look at such examples and resolve to look for such innovative ways to clean up the mismanagement of our public funds with more effective programs across the board, establish a budget that is within the means of our citizens, separate "needs" from "wants", and get this mess cleaned up.
There is no excuse for the ridiculous mismanagement from our elected officials!
Vote no to any new taxes, yes to pay caps, until the leadership can demonstrate that they can manage the money they have currently been entrusted with more effectively.
Green Dot's success with our toughest education problems clearly demonstrates that it is not "how much you spend" it is "how wisely you spend!"
SMC

Posted by: SMC at May 18, 2009 09:39 PM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker

Advertise Here

Our latest headlines

About Us

Sponsors

Books

Critical responses from Democratic Leaders and Progressive Groups to Governor’s Proposals For Dealing with Deficit

Comments

Get Email Updates