Disability Rights Advocates Mobilizing Against Governor’s Proposed Budget Cuts
By Marty Omoto
California Disability Community Action Network
In response to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proclamation, issued January 8, of a state fiscal emergency, the State Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, chaired by Sen. Denise Ducheny (Democrat – San Diego) released Thursday a series of public hearings through early February that will focus on the Governor’s budget spending reduction proposals that need early action from the Legislature by March 1, 2010, in order to take effect June 1, 2010.
Most of the other proposals by the Governor that would take effect during the next State budget year that begins July 1, 2010, will be heard later – likely March through April and early May, during what used to be the normal state budget subcommittee process.
Representatives from the Governor’s Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst Office, the non-partisan agency that works for the Legislature in reviewing and providing analysis on budget issues, will be at each of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee hearings. Brief public testimony and comments will be taken at the Senate budget hearings – though persons can submit written comments and testimony before, during and after the hearings.
The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee is not expected to take final action on the Governor’s proposals during these hearings, though in theory it could.
The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing early Thursday on the general overview of the Governor’s proposed State budget though took no action, but did announce the series of hearings. The Assembly Budget Committee, chaired by Assemblymember Noreen Evans (Democrat – Santa Rosa) held a similar overview hearing on January 13.
No Hearing Schedule Yet From Assembly Budget Committee
Other than a joint informational hearing with the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services on January 27 dealing with implementation of recent changes to the In-Home Supportive Services program, the Assembly Budget Committee or its budget subcommittees, have not yet released a schedule of hearings, though that is expected soon.
Legislature On Fast Track To Respond To Governor’s Proposals for Cuts to Current Budget
- The Legislature – as it has for the past several years, is responding to the Governor’s proposed State Budget on two tracks due to the budget crisis with an enormous budget deficit estimated at close to $20 billion by the end of the 2010-2011 State Budget year (that ends June 30, 2011), with the first track focused on considering and approving proposals that would reduce spending or make other budget changes effective during the current budget year – meaning cuts or changes that would take effect before June 30, 2010.
- In order for that to happen however, the Legislature would have to approve reductions and policy changes to the current budget no later than March 1, 2010 (to allow sufficient time for any reductions to be implemented by the state agencies, including required notices). The hearings in January and early February are being held to review and consider the Governor’s proposals for budget reductions – sometimes referred to as mid-year reductions – to take effect June 1, 2010.
- The second track is what used to be the normal budget process of subcommittee hearings, followed by a joint budget conference committee, and then deadlock in both houses until agreement is reached among the “Big Five” (the Governor, and the four Democratic and Republican State Senate and Assembly leaders). Those subcommittee hearings normally begin in March and end sometime in early May. It is not certain how this second track will proceed, since last year, for the first time in California history, the Legislature passed a State budget four months early in February – though it required major revisions in July due to the still growing deficit. It doesn’t appear likely at this point that the Legislature will repeat passing an early budget.
- In addition to that, is the impact to the budget process due to the June 2010 state primary election when all the major statewide officers – including governor, all 80 Assembly and 20 State Senate seats are up for election, followed in November by the general election.
Medi-Cal, Mental Health, Developmental Services Senate Hearing January 26
Most of the major budget cutting proposals impacting health services, including proposals for major reductions to Medi-Cal, Mental Health, Healthy Families, and developmental services (regional centers and developmental centers) will be heard on January 26, Tuesday afternoon at 1:00 to 4:00 PM at the State Capitol in Room 4203. Brief public testimony will be taken in addition to written comments and letters submitted to the committee.
The Governor is proposing over $1 billion in spending reductions to the Medi-Cal program, including permanent elimination of the Medi-Cal adult day health optional benefit, major cuts to Healthy Families – the state’s health insurance program for low income children matched with federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program funds, reductions to Mental Health by proposing shifting funds from the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63), and continuing on-going reductions passed last July and February to developmental services (community-based services funded through the 21 non-profit regional centers under the Department of Developmental Services, who also oversee the operations of the state owned and staffed developmental centers and 2 smaller facilities.
IHSS, SSI/SSP, CAPI AND CALWORKS Senate Budget Hearing February 2
The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee hearing on human services – including In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), SSI/SSP, (Supplemental Security Income/State Supplemental Payment cash grant program), CAPI (Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants), CalWORKS, is scheduled for February 2, 2010, Tuesday from 1:00 to 4:00 PM at the State Capitol in Room 4203. Brief public testimony will be taken in addition to written comments and letters submitted to the committee.
The Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants provides grants similar to SSI/SSP for about 10,000 legal immigrants in California who have disabilities, are blind or low income seniors who do not qualify for the federal SSI grant program. The Governor has proposed complete elimination of this program, effective June 1, 2010 (assuming the Legislature approves this proposal by March 1, 2010).
The Governor is proposing major reductions to the IHSS program including a proposal that would have sweeping impact on eligibility and services. That proposal, if enacted by March 1, 2010, and effective June 1, 2010, reduce the population receiving IHSS by 87%, or about 420,000 children and adults with disabilities, the blind, mental health needs and seniors, based on a person’s “functional index score”. That score, an internal assessment tool administered by a county social worker when assessing (or re-assessing) a person for services under IHSS, is the average of rankings of the ability of a person to perform various tasks. The Governor proposes that anyone with a “functional index score” of 4.00 or higher would continue to be eligible for services under IHSS – and anyone below that would no longer be eligible for any services under IHSS.
Over 1,000 People Participate in 2 CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings This Week On Governor’s Budget Proposals on IHSS, SSI/SSP&Developmental Services
In a sign of increasing anxiety and concern about the Govenror’s proposals for sweeping cuts to In-Home Supportive Services, SSI/SSP, Medi-Cal, and other health and human services, over 1,000 people with disabilities, mental health needs, the blind, seniors, their families, community organizations, facilities, workers, advocates, federal, state and local officials participated in the two free public forums this week, called CDCAN “Townhall Telemeetings” accessed by toll free phone lines. People were able to ask questions directly to senior state officials on the Governor’s budget proposals. The CDCAN Townhall Telemeetings, since early 2003, thousands of people have participated in the free public forums that seek to link people to public policy making directly.
Audio recordings of both townhall telemeetings (and other townhall telemeetings) are available to anyone on the CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us More townhalls are planned, pending additional funding and support (see below).
The CDCAN Townhall Telemeeting held January 12th, focused on proposed cuts to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), CalWORKS, SSI/SSP, the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) and featured California Department of Social Services senior officials, including director John Wagner, Chief Deputy Director Bob Garica, Deputy Director Pete Cervinka, Deputy Director Eva Lopez and Bureau Chief Eileen Carroll. Over 370 people participated in that townhall telemeeting from across the State.
The CDCAN Townhall Telemeeting held January 13th focused on proposed reductions and other changes and a status update on the budget reductions passed last July and February to the budget under the Department of Developmental Services that funds services coordinated by the 21 non-profit regional centers for over 240,000 children and adults with developmental disabilities.. The department also provided updates on the operations of the state-owned and staffed developmental centers and two smaller facilities which it oversees. That townhall featured Terri Delgadillo, director of the Department of Developmental Services, Chief Deputy Director Mark Hutchinson, Deputy Directors Julia Mullen and Rita Walker, and Mary Lee Pennington, who heads the department’s legislative unit. Nearly 800 people with disabilities and others participated in this townhall, breaking the previous attendance record.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marty Omoto is Executive Director of the California Disability Community Action Network, a non-partisan link to thousands of Californians with developmental and other disabilities, people with traumatic brain injuries, the blind, the deaf, their families, community organizations and providers, direct care, homecare and other workers, and other advocates to provide information on state and local public policy issues.
- christine's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend


Air Force One Shoes
Air Jordan Shoes
Air Max Shoes
Air Yeezy Shoes
Air Dunk Shoes
Air Shox Shoes
Air Force One Canvas Women
Air Force One Canvas Men
Air Force One High Women
Air Force One High Men
Air Force One Low Men
Air Force One Low Women
Air Force One New Styles
Nike Air Max 2003 Women
Nike Air Max 2003 Men
Nike Air Max 2009 Men
Nike Air Max 2009 Women
Nike Air Max 90 Men
Nike Air Max 90 Women
Nike Air Max 95 Men
Nike Air Max CLASSIC BW Men
Nike Air Max CLASSIC BW Women
Nike Air Max CLASSIC BW Kid
Air Yeezy Men
Air Yeezy Women
Nike Dunk High Kid
Nike Dunk Low Kid
Nike Dunk High Men
Nike Dunk High Women
Nike Dunk Low Men
Nike Shox Shoes
Nike Shox NZ Men
Nike Shox NZ Women
Nike Shox OZ Men
Nike Shox OZ Women
Nike Shox R2 Men
Nike Shox R2 Women
Nike Shox R4 Men
Nike Shox R3 Men
Nike Shox R4 New Women
Nike Shox R4 New Men
Nike Shox R4 Women
Nike Shox R6 Men
Nike Dunk Low Men
Air Force One New Styles
cheap nike air max shoes,nike air max 90,air max 1 shoes,air max shoes,air max 1,cheap jordan shoes,Jordan retro 11,air max LTD,nike air max 2009,nike air max 360,nike air max 180,nike air max tn,cheap jordan shoes,jordan shoes for sale,jordan basketball shoes,cheap jordan shoes,michael jordan shoes,jordan shoes for sale
Very informative and trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading .Thank you for submitting . S o cool of you. Video to iPad Converter
Do you like gucci shoes? and then gucci outlet will satisfy any of your needs,such as the gucci men shoes|women gucci boots as well as women gucci handbags on gucci handbags sale.
Proper budgeting gain a significant interest among budget departments this is to properly allocate the government fund which will bring out for the Californian government projects. Did you know who is really starting to suffer in this recession are small businesses, because small business funding dries up during recessions. The big loans people are concerned about are mortgages and loans between banks, but small business loans are actually declining, as it's been revealed that by January of 2010, only 68 percent of small businesses were able to get adequate funding. Many businesses classified as small cannot get by on payday loans or unsecured loans very easily, and that is a shame, because small businesses make up over 50% of US GDP.
Chevron earned $24 billions in 2008, as per www.tyrannyofoil.com. Schwarzenegger should put an excessive profits tax on these profits, instead of protecting the oil corporations from fair taxation, then, there would be sufficient public funds for all the vulnerable, people programs. Big business lost the fight to eliminate domestic violence funding, so now they are coming back with a vengeance. There is no domestic violence funding provision in the present budget.
Chevron earned $24 billions in 2008,...
Chevron earned $24 billion on sales of $280 billion - a not inconsequential 8.6% profit margin. By comparison, Safeway makes about 6% return on their sales. Of course then they paid taxes on that. And of that total $24 billion, only a small fraction of that was earned in California. Then there is also a question of their capitalization without which they can't do business - almost $131 billion - that belongs to their shareholders. Shareholders that deserve some return on their investment as well. The state is currently paying almost 4% tax-free on their general obligation bonds. The Chevron investors are going to expect AT LEAST that much if they are going to provide capital to Chevron to do business.
By the time you look at this realistically this is not a huge pot of money, and the share of it that has anything to do with California is smaller yet. Not for a state that's got a $20 billion shortfall.
The idea that we can have big government paid for by the wealthy and the evil corporations is largely a myth. If we are going to have big government, it will be paid for by all of us, the rich - the middle class - and the poor.
Now we can debate the advantages and disadvantages of a high tax-high service form of government versus a low tax - low service form of government. Intelligent people can agree to differ on that. But to claim that there is somehow a free lunch - that everything we want in government can be paid for painlessly - by the other guy - is just plain false.
Chevron very definitely made excessive profits on a gallon of gasoline that cost $4.50. The excessive profits are derived from artificially, inflated revenues, which are devrived from artificially, inflated cost price. See "The Global Oil Scam " in Google.
With respect to big government, the problem is that the oil corporations are using their clout, from in behind the scenes, not to pay their fair share of taxes or no taxes (e.g. oil extraction tax).
Why don't the Chevron stockholders use their dividends to clean-up San Francisco Bay? It has been dirty for decades. Google the article called, "Chevron owes more to Richmond and California."
Chevron very definitely made excessive profits on a gallon of gasoline that cost $4.50.
Chevron, as noted, made 8% on sales. What were the TAXES on those sales? Oh yes, here they are:
Tax on fuel in California is $0.63.9% per gallon for gas, $0.72per gallon for diesel - plus 6% sales tax, 1.25% county tax, and local taxes plus another .012 per gallon UST.
You think gas is too high? The government is making a shitload more on it than Chevron is.
http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
If the government is making more Chevron, they why is there a budget deficit?
f the government is making more Chevron, they why is there a budget deficit?
YGBSM!
Is 8th grade civics no longer required in California public schools?
Chevron is running a business. The legislature is running for re-election.
There is a budget deficit because Chevron and the other big corporations did not pay their fair share of taxes for past seven years.
And what, pray tell, would that "fair share" be, in your humble opinion?
And just out of curiosity, do they get credit for the income taxes and other taxes their employees pay that fund the California government? Or for the state taxes collected on the fuel they sell?
You've obviously never been a businessman. Would you take a job that offered you only an 8% commission on sales and no benefits?
Why don't the Chevron stockholders use their dividends to clean-up San Francisco Bay? It has been dirty for decades.
It's been dirty for a lot longer than that. Suisin bay and the whole of San Francisco Bay has been contaminated with mercury used in sluice boxes along the American River for over a century.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527757/
The US Navy parked a 'ghost fleet' in those waters - gradually rusting away and contributing their own pollutants for decades. Some have simply sunk;
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13618789
And of course there is a sh!tload of PCB in San Francisco Bay - mostly from urban runoff from Oakland and San Francisco not disposing of their electrical transformers properly back in the 60s and 70s.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDS-4NJP3V8-1...
There is a hell of a lot of contamination in bay sediment - and damn little of it was caused by either Chevron or their shareholders.
Having said that, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the return on investment of the shareholders capital. Capital expense is a cost of doing business and must be paid - just like the state must pay the interest (and ultimately the principal) on the general obligation bonds they sell.
If you want to tax oil companies for the cleanup of the bay you can certainly do so. They will pass those taxes right along to the customer. It's the only way they can survive.
There is no free lunch.
The Environmental Protection Agency stated that Chevron dumped 100,000 pounds of toxic waste in San Francisco Bay in 2007. Why does not Chevron clean-up their own pollution, on their own initiative, and without being forced to, thru taxes? Chevron never should have dumped the toxic waste in the Bay in the first place, if they were good corporate citizens.
The Environmental Protection Agency stated that Chevron dumped 100,000 pounds of toxic waste in San Francisco Bay in 2007
Does it have a name?
Oakland California dumps hundreds of TONS of RAW SEWAGE into the bay EVERY TIME THEY HAVE A HEAVY RAIN and their storm sewer system overflows INTO THEIR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM.
Treasure Island WAS BUILT OF trash - much of it toxic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Island_%28California%29
and continues to leak vast amounts of hazardous waste including into the bay.
http://www.albionmonitor.com/free/treasureisland.html
A single tanker accident in 2007 put 400,000 pounds of bunker oil into the harbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_San_Francisco_Bay_oil_spill
When you toss around numbers like 50 tons a year in makes it seem like you have no concept of the actual numbers that the municipalities put in the bay every day. Do You?
Were you aware of the Dioxin hazards in the bay? Here's an article to read:
http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/dioxin/sfbay.html#whataresources
Here are a few excerpts:
Refinery effluent discharges are not thought to be a major source of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in the Bay. Most refineries do not have detectable levels in their discharges.
For the largest categories of direct deposition and storm water runoff, the Regional Board suspects air emissions from disperse sources or from “reservoir sources” to be the ultimate source due to uniformity of concentrations throughout the region independent of industrial activity. The current known air sources are on- and off-road mobile sources (motor vehicles, including diesel), and residential wood burning (e.g., home fireplaces) (BAAQMD, Air Emissions of Dioxin in the Bay Area, March 1996). Dioxin legacy sources may include over 20 medical waste incinerators and other combustion sources that operated historically in the Bay Area. The RWQCB 1997 inventory indicated two sewage sludge incinerators (Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District and Palo Alto’s sewage treatment plant) and one medical waste incinerator (Integrated Environmental Systems, Oakland; now closed) in the Bay Area.
Now the fact of the matter is, I don't have a dime of stock in Chevron, so it's no skin off my nose if you defame them. But wasting all that angst on a problem that isn't THE problem just totally destroys your credibility, you know what I mean?
And going after them as a funding source that is going to solve California's problems is just silly. 75% of their business is overseas, and the majority of the domestic business is NOT in California. They could move their headquarters tomorrow (like Northrop Grumman and McDonnell Douglas and others already have).
We need jobs - not wishful thinking.
There were 4000 pounds of benzene in the toxic waste, that Chevron dumped in the harbor in 2008.
Gasoline averages 1% benzene. Californians used 15,953,544,289 gallons of gasoline in 2005. That contained 159,535,442 gallons of benzene. Benzene is about 6.5 pounds per gallon. That means Californians poured 1,036,980,373 pounds of benzene into their cars and out in to the atmosphere while Chevron lost less than 2 gallons of benzene a day from their refinery. You seriously think they ought to be taken to the woodshed for that? I've been in a LOT of university chemistry labs doing refluxing with benzene where we lost a lot more than that into the air.
Read it and weep:
http://safetyservices.ucdavis.edu/environmental-health-safety/safetynets...
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Matthew 7:3
I really get the feeling that you don't understand much about this topic. Certainly not if you consider 4000 pounds ob benzene over the course of the year to be a big deal.
If you want to be pissed at Chevron, be pissed because of all the Methyl tert-Butyl ether they produced which is now polluting our groundwater. Of course, the state Air Resources Board REQUIRED them to produce that and to put it in their gasoline up until about 2000.
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/fuels/oxypanel/blueribb.htm
I agree with you that Chevron is a minor player in the polluting of San Francisco Bay; however, I disagree with you on Chevron's excessive profiteering and tax avoidance.
I agree with you that Chevron is a minor player in the polluting of San Francisco Bay
Then why were you WHINING about it? Why do you ruin your own credibility by being petulant if you KNOW something you are bitching about is no big deal? You come across as either ignorant or stupid. Neither one helps you sell your argument.
however, I disagree with you on Chevron's excessive profiteering and tax avoidance.
Just what percentage profit do you consider "excessive"?
In 2008 Chevron made about 8% return on their sales. To do that they had to search for oil, develop it, produce it, refine it, distribute it, and sell it. They employed a great many people to do this - all of whom also paid taxes and contributed to their communities.
State, federal, and local governments got almost $75 billion in taxes directly as a result of Chevron's sales - for doing jack-squat. The retail outlets actually collected the taxes and just mailed the money in.
Who is doing more actual WORK for the money they collect here .... Chevron or the government?