[mobile site, backup mobile]
[Calitics en espanol]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary

View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
The Calitics Show:
Event Calendar
October 2008
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services

ProgressiveCA Blogs

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Listen to Calitics Podcast on internet talk radioAdvertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

California State Budget Needed Now So Prenatal Health Clinics Can Remain Open

by: Speaker Fabian Núñez

Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 16:59:54 PM PDT


(Welcome Speaker. As per our policy of bumping diaries of electeds, up this goes. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Earlier this week I visited the Birthing Project in Sacramento, a health clinic a few blocks away from the State Capitol. The Birthing Project staff works very hard on behalf of their clients to increase healthy pregnancies and successful births - something you'd think typically anti-choice Republican politicians would rhapsodize about. Instead, the Birthing Project and health clinics like it throughout California -- who treat newborns and seniors and everyone in between -- are in danger of closing their doors or eliminating services because a handful of Republican State Senators are refusing to provide one additional vote to pass the state budget.

With Senate Republicans holding out on the budget, state payments to keep clinics like the Birthing Project open stopped two weeks ago. For facilities that only get by on the skin of their teeth anyway, not getting these state funds is a huge blow. The harm caused to clinics like these is totally unnecessary and totally reversible -- as soon as one more Republican member of the State Senate does his job, finds his conscience, and votes for the state budget.

The Assembly passed a budget that meets the constitutional requirement to be balanced back on July 20. That budget has a reserve of $3.4 billion - the highest in history and more than a billion dollars higher than what the Republican Governor proposed in his budget. The budget makes deep cuts in a number of areas that were not acceptable to Democrats, but, in the spirit of compromise and a responsible effort to enact a budget, we reluctantly agreed to these cuts.

More over the flip...
Speaker Fabian Núñez :: California State Budget Needed Now So Prenatal Health Clinics Can Remain Open
The balanced budget passed by Democrats and Republicans in the Assembly is supported by all Senate Democrats, Governor Schwarzenegger and one Republican Senator who broke ranks so Californians wouldn't be harmed by an ongoing budget stalemate.

The constitution requires a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature to pass a budget. In fact, two-thirds of the legislature does support the Assembly budget - but one more Republican vote in the Senate is needed for actual passage.

Senate Republicans are holding up the budget over totally unrelated issues, such as their desire to weaken CEQA, California's premier environmental law, to benefit oil companies and developers. That's not a budget issue (and it's not going to happen).

Some of the Senate Republican holdouts did vote for last year's budget, which is interesting given that the reserve last year was only $2.1 billion, compared to the $3.4 billion reserve in this budget. Last year's budget had a "structural deficit" (the amount expenditures for a year exceed revenues collected in that year) of $6.9 billion compared to $699 million in this budget. Last year's budget increased spending 9.2% while revenues were projected to grow only 1.7%. This budget does the opposite, limiting expenditure growth to 1.3% while revenues are projected to grow 6%.

This budget has been described, accurately, as a dream Republican budget. But as long as the "Gang of Fourteen" Republican holdouts in the Senate keep holding the budget hostage, it's a nightmare for the Birthing Project and for other important programs that rely on state funding.

It's time for all Californians to turn up the pressure on those 14 Senate Republicans to counteract the hyper-partisan pleas they are getting to hold out.

Like most Californians, the people at the Birthing Project don't care what political web sites say. They don't care who's ahead in the Senate Republican leadership fight. They don't care who's running for Lt. Governor in 2010.

They just want to be able to do their jobs.

Which means one more Republican Senator needs to do his job, find his conscience, and vote for this responsible budget.
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
California State Budget Needed Now So Prenatal Health Clinics Can Remain Open | 25 comments
Nope (1.00 / 2)
Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. While I respect you, I have to be manly about this.

An old adage is, "if we call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The answer is 4, calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. This is not a responsible budget and it is definitely not balanced. Some stubborn facts:

1. The 3 1/2 billion reserve is down from 10 1/2 billion a year ago.

2. You claim it's balanced, yet admit it has a about a $700 million deficit. That's a contradiction

Let's look at the REAL deficit and accounting gimmicks:

1. Prison guard contract offer that is unaccounted for: at LEAST $330 million. So $1.03 billion so far

2. According to the LAO, $190 million of overstated property tax revenues. So $1.22 billion

3. According to the LAO, $184 million of overstated tribal gaming revenues. So $1.404 billion

4. Failure to account for the $603 million LESS we took in during May and June. So $2.007 billion

5. Postponing OWED payments to local governments for mandate relief: $300 million. So $2.307 billion

6. Taking $357 million that was scheduled, in 2008-2009, to pay OWED settlement costs and using it for general fund spending. So $2.664 billion

7. Using $250 million of the Williams School Facility Repair funds for general fund expenditures. So $2.914 billion

8. EPSDT prior year deficiency deferral: $260 million. So $3.174 billion

9. Expecting $709 million in escheated property DEFYING THE COURT'S ORDER. So $3.883 billion

10. The state lost the "Limited Liability" court case on the lower level and will likely lose on the appellate level. The state is ignoring that likelihood and the $200 million liability going with it. So $4.083 billion

11. Assuming Arnold will make $176 in unallocated reductions when he's broken similar problems in the past. So $4.259 billion

12. Assuming the federal government will renew the Medi-Cal FPACT waiver when significant reason exists that it will not. That's $300 million. So $4.559 billion

13. Assuming $980 from the EdFund sale when it has NEVER BEEN APPRAISED and sources say the actual amount is likely 1/5. So $5.539 billion

14. Ignoring the likelihood that it will have to pay $500 million of the $558 million adverse judgment coming from its failure to fund CalSTRS. So $6.039 billion

Subtract the $3.4 billion reserve, and it's still over $2.5 billion. We're maxing out on our Prop 57 borrowing capacity.

And don't blame the rescinding of the car tax increase. Aside from the fact that the increase DIDN'T raise revenues, it was ILLEGAL, and if anyone supports a tax increase to cover up accounting gimmicks that are laughable at best and criminal at worst, words cannot describe my disagreement with them

The Silent Consensus

You have to be manly? (0.00 / 0)
What does that even mean?

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
I admit... (0.00 / 0)
it might not have been the best word to use, but regardless, it was not meant in a sexist way. I meant strong

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Nice to see this here (4.50 / 2)
Glad that the Speaker is continuing his outreach to us, as he is to other Californians on the budget. I think it's important to remind Californians of what services are being hurt by the ongoing budget delay.

This specific diary also lays out some good points to use in explaining to the public the hypocrisy of the Republican position, particularly their willingness to vote for a budget last year with a smaller reserve. Anything we can do to further show people how full of crap the Republicans are, the better.

I do still think we need to be thinking about how to remove the 2/3 clause, and I'd love to see the Speaker's thoughts on that.

(Plus I didn't want the only comment on this diary to be vf2005's usual GOP talking points.)

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

That 2/3 vote... (0.00 / 0)
It would be a total holy war to try changing it.  Not that I disagree it needs to be changed. 

We sorely need a constitutional convention though.  A whole bunch of other stuff needs to be changed.

[ Parent ]
IF... (0.00 / 0)
it included reducing the threshold for tax increases, then it would be a holy war. If it was for everything except tax increases, it would pass easily (even Tom McClintock supports that)

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
I doubt the Reeps... (0.00 / 0)
would let go of their relevance so easily.  Trust me, they would fight to stop it- tax threshold or not.

While we're at it we need to fix props 13 & 98 and bring some accountability to the initiative process.

[ Parent ]
There's the repubs... (1.00 / 1)
and then there's the voters.

the 2/3 is part of Prop 13 by the way. I do not support a split roll property tax; to raise it on commercial property will get passed down to consumers (higher prices), employees (lower wages), and/or shareholders (lower earnings). It ends up being a regressive tax increase, taxing those who can least afford it. I'm not saying Prop 13 shouldn't be amended, but it should not be in that way

With Prop 98, I completely agree. It should be per capita spending adjusted for inflation (or whatever it takes to maintain consistency in education). I would not get any higher increases during booms and no drops during downturns. Students need consistency in their education in going through grades K-12. Other than education, all spending mandates should be repealed

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Economics For Dummies Strikes Again (5.00 / 2)
Two issues you may have not learned in what passed for your economics education:

  • There's a concept called tax incidence. Roughly speaking, who pays the tax is a function of the elasticity of demand.  So the correct answer on this basis is "it depends"

  • Businesses impose costs upon the areas they are located.  The absurdly low tax assessments on commercial property means that we are subsidizing these costs.  Bad economics, that.

You can be pro-business to the extent you're being, or you can talk sensibly about the economics, but you cannot do both.

So you don't talk sensibly about economics.

[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
to your first bullet: It will be done in one or more of the 3 ways. One thing businesses don't do is go into their profits

To your second bullet: We are not subsidizing these costs. A higher commercial property tax would mean higher prices, lower wages, or lower earnings.

Lastly: we are in a high tax state. We have a high income tax, sales tax, and I can only imagine what would happen if we had a high property tax. 

"You can be pro-business to the extent you're being, or you can talk sensibly about the economics, but you cannot do both." False dilemma

I don't talk sensibly about economics? I'm sorry but I'm not leaving that on the table. In a state like California which has high taxes (and little in return, I might add), and all states around us have lower taxes, raising taxes LOWERS revenues

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
I don't think it would be total holy war (8.00 / 1)
I think we overestimate its difficulty. Surely it won't be easy, nothing worth doing is ever easy, especially when it comes at the Republicans' expense. But it's a winnable battle, with the right ballot proposal, the right timing, the right sales pitch, and the right coalition behind it.

Ultimately, it's well past time for us to stop finding reasons to not do something and instead find reasons to do it. Our approach should be this: determine what we want and figure out how to make it happen. THAT must be our overriding political attitude.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
I guess I'm just a realist... (0.00 / 0)
...but I doubt the right circumstances would ever come together.  Remember, California is really a moderate state and you'll have a hard time convincing Central Valley Dems on some of the fiscal impacts.  There's a reason why they send moderates to the legislature.
[ Parent ]
Seriously (8.00 / 2)
if you really need to feel important this badly, the mirror is probably a better place to look.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
I don't think I'm important at all... (0.00 / 0)
...I'm just another armchair quarterback like everyone else here.

Like I said, I'd love to see some comprehensive reform of California's government.  I'd also like a million dollars, world peace and a pet tiger.  Is it impossible? No.

The point is, something like changing the 2/3 requirement would be a Herculean task.  And it's certainly easier to kill something than to pass it.

[ Parent ]
And that's fine (0.00 / 0)
But if that's your point, there's no need to preface so many of your comments with variations on "I guess I'm just smarter than you."

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
I don't think I've ever said that... (0.00 / 0)
...I happen to have certain opinions that don't always go along with others.  Quite frankly, there seem to be many around here with a "I guess I'm just smarter than you" vibe.

I mean...wtf?

It's politics.  This is an ego driven sort of pursuit.

So, I apologize if my tone comes off that way.  It's not really my intent.  That being said, there are some things I know a little more about and other things I know nothing about...which is why I only comment on certain types of issues (the ones I think I know about) and don't comment on others (the ones I know nothing about).

Can't we all just get along?

[ Parent ]
Examples (0.00 / 0)
"I guess I'm just a realist"
"Trust me, they would fight to stop it"
"This is the real world...not theoreticals"
"I reckon...when it comes to the inner workings of the building, many bloggers do need someone to explain what's what."

a matter of tone.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
I'll be the first one to accept... (0.00 / 0)
...the last of the 4 comments as being catty & persnickitty. 

The 3rd one (in context) was a response to Mr. VF in a discussion of making political deals to achieve legislation.  In the course of the discussion he was speaking in terms of "in theory, this is how it should be and how on a sort of ethical level making deals on the budget was wrong".  Thus, came my comment about the real world, not theoreticals.

The 2nd one was just an observation that would be made by anyone.  People hate when others try to change the status quo (as changing the 2/3 req. would).  I don't think I'm trying to act smarter by saying that...though I suppose the "trust me" at the start of the statement kind of comes off as smartypantsesque.

The 1st one is just my general attitude about politics.  Sorry if that is misconstrued.  I am a realist, and though I respect the idealism of many of the people here, I just feel compelled to pipe in about certain things.  It's not an effort to piss on the parade, but to point out the reality sometimes about how things work (and again, I'll note that I make my realist comments, for the most part, about the inner workings of the legislature, which I happen to know a little about).

So, again...my bad for seeming like a prick and I accept responsibility for the last comment.

I'm off to play poker.  Talk to you later.

[ Parent ]
They only think they send moderates (0.00 / 0)
Because folks like Jeff Denham spend a lot of time and money convincing voters at election time they're moderate politicians - and as soon as the election is done they go right back to being the far-right nutjobs they actually are. Voters in a district like Denham's are only now seeing his true colors - nobody in the media bothered to point out his deeply conservative voting record last fall during the campaign.

As to "right circumstances" our role as not just political actors, but as citizens, is to make those circumstances come about. If our only option is to sit and wait it out, then screw this, I'll find something better to do with my time. I'm not engaged in politics so that 40 years down the line I can see a few progressive policies enacted. The public wants what we want, so why are we so hesitant to give it to them?

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Politics is a marathon... (0.00 / 0)
...not a sprint.  Sometimes it takes 40 years for stuff.
[ Parent ]
You know what... (1.00 / 2)
"(Plus I didn't want the only comment on this diary to be vf2005's usual GOP talking points.)"

I'm sorry but I'm not leaving that on the table. I have the audacity to look at the budget situation as it is, and you call them "GOP talking points." Calling them that doesn't make it so. They are factual statements, period.

Name one GOP talking point I have there. Whenever I have made similar requests, you've ignored them, only showing your inability to back yourself up

Let's make no mistake, YOU are the one who is deceiving here, not me. I laid it all out factually, and you call them "GOP talking points." They are facts, and you sir are giving "pro-bankruptcy talking points"

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
That reminds me, by the way... (1.00 / 2)
of the time you said I don't know what property rights are about, and then you proved yourself as the pot trying to call the kettle black. You said something like "no one's property rights are being violated even under Kelo, they are receiving just compensation."

So I'll present you a check for what I feel is the fair market value for your house, and I'm moving in next week no questions asked. That's your logic, and it fails 101. Take coffee for example, I pay $5 for a cup of coffee. I am saying that the coffee is more valuable to me than my $5, and the company is saying that my $5 is more valuable to them than the coffee. We are both made better off as a result. That's what property rights are about: the ability to engage in transactions that make one better off and not engage in those that don't. Who's the judge of whether he is being made better off? the property owner

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
thanks (0.00 / 0)
Thanks, for coming around.

I think we've all realized Flash has owned the budget online, but it is to be expected that the majority isn't as scrappy as the minority.

I hope this conversation continues (and give Donald a raise, he's doing good stuff).

- John McCain

"turn up the pressure" (0.00 / 0)
What levers of pressure would you suggest Californians utilize?

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
Try bombarding Ackerman's ofice w/calls everyday... (0.00 / 0)
...along with Runner, Cogdill, Denham & Dutton.