A Wake of Death and Destruction

Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

By Brian Leubitz

When Arnold came to Sacramento, riding a populist wave that was based, in substantial part, to a populist anti-tax message, he promised to "blow up the boxes."  In the 6+ years since then, not only did he dig a deeper hole in the budget with his "car tax" cut, but he also managed to further mangle an already broken system.

But structural concerns pale in comparison to the toll in lives that we may face in the next few years if something substantial isn't done to curb his recent budget plan.  One key item that will send the state reeling? The in-home support services (IHSS) cuts. Arnold's current plan is that if the state gets a bunch of money from the feds, he'll cut 87% from IHSS. If the state gets nothing, he'll completely eliminate IHSS.  The depth of the tragedy this would entail is really quite hard to imagine.

If IHSS is eliminated, there simply would not be enough institutional beds in the state to handle all of these cases.  People will literally die in their homes, or because financial support is also being cut, more likely in the streets. And in that respect, Arnold is just like his hero, Ronald Reagan. Reagan dumped millions of people in the streets, and Arnold is attempting to do the same thing

Susan Ferriss has a great article in the Bee on the social safety net, or what's left of it:

For Capitol insiders, it's easy to chalk it up as a bluff when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes terminating welfare-to-work and in-home care for the disabled if California doesn't get billions in federal money he's requested.

But it's no chess game for a welfare-to-work mother seriously trying to find a job, or a person in a wheelchair whose living stipend has already been slashed twice in one year. (SacBee)

And the dumbest part of this? IHSS actually saves the state money.

If Antoinette Darden (who, according to the Bee, is blind, a diabetic and suffers from a spinal cord injury) moved to a nursing home, the state couldn't take away these benefits because federal law prohibits withholding services critical to the health of the disabled. At the same time, the state acknowledges that the public cost of institutionalizing disabled people is far greater than if they live in their own homes.

There is a certain set of core services that a government is expected to provide. If Arnold has his way, California will not be in the business of providing care to the disabled, and leave survival of the fittest to do its best to the state.  

Arnold's legacy? Just look to the streets in 3 years and see for yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian Leubitz publishes Calitics.com a leading California progressive blog covering California politics. After practicing law in San Francisco, Brian transitioned into politics.