PDA

View Full Version : California - the end of welfare?


nmap
06-08-2009, 13:49
The budget problem in California may cause the state to end welfare.

This has interesting implications, IMO, for the stability of the state as well as the movement of populations. One might wonder what the various recipients will do when the checks stop. Perhaps they will behave badly; others may move to other states.

IMO, other states will also curtail welfare spending. Ultimately, a good thing; but not, perhaps, without some challenges for a time.

LINK (http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1917387.html)


Budget plan could doom CalWORKS aid to families, children
Published Thursday, Jun. 04, 2009


Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?

That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

County welfare directors are "in shock" at the very idea of getting rid of CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state's history, said Bruce Wagstaff, director of the Department of Human Assistance in Sacramento.

"It's difficult to come up with the right adjective to react to this," Wagstaff said. "It would be devastating to the people we serve."

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance, said California is in an unprecedented fiscal situation that has made all programs, from education to human services, vulnerable to deep and painful reductions.

"I don't wish for a moment to minimize the profound impact" that eliminating CalWORKs would have, Palmer said. "But the easy decisions are way past being in the rearview mirror for us. We face the specter of California not having cash on hand to pay its bills in July."

Wagstaff and other administrators are betting that the state will rescue the "welfare to work" program. But they are bracing for cuts that would slash benefits to the lowest levels since the late 1990s, when CalWORKs began as part of the federal government's bold reform of the welfare system.

"It would be a huge regression," said Nancy O'Hara, assistant director of the Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services. "My mind reels just thinking about all of this."

California would save $157 million in the general fund by cutting CalWORKs altogether, according to the County Welfare Directors Association. But the group warns that the state would lose some $620 million in federal funds for the program. Palmer put the projected federal loss much higher, at $3.7 billion.

The association argues that eliminating CalWORKs would force thousands of families into homelessness, hurt the state economically and put added pressure on already strapped county assistance programs.

"No other state has eliminated all aid to dependent children, and no other First World country that we are aware of has no safety net for poor families," said Frank Mecca, the group's executive director. "There really is no fallback, especially given the financial condition that most counties are in."

O'Hara predicted higher rates of child abuse and abandonment if CalWORKs were to disappear.

"I can see it happening, like it did during the Great Depression when people could no longer provide for their children," O'Hara said. "I have not allowed myself to think about it in detail. I'm holding out hope that this won't happen."

CalWORKs, which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children in California, serves some 525,000 families each month, Mecca said. Welfare caseloads have dropped by half since its inception, he said, although recently they have begun to creep up again because of the wobbly economy.

"CalWORKs represents a real cultural change in the way welfare programs operate, and it's worked. It has proven to be a success," Wagstaff said. "People have gotten jobs. We have seen good outcomes for kids. Poverty rates have gone down. It's almost unthinkable to imagine taking this step backwards."

In Sacramento County, 33,500 families receive CalWORKs benefits, including more than 62,000 children, Wagstaff said. A family of three gets a monthly check of $689, plus food stamps. But CalWORKs does more than simply issue checks, he pointed out. It helps people, many of whom have depended on public assistance for years, learn new skills and get jobs, with subsidies for child care.

"Even as the unemployment rate was going up, we were still putting thousands of people to work," said Wagstaff. "I would argue that when the economy is down, the need for these kinds of services is higher than ever."

Roxanne Morales, 44, lived off welfare "for many years" and credits CalWORKs with turning her life around.

When she learned more than a decade ago that the rules for welfare were changing and she would have to get a job or go to school to retain her benefits, Morales panicked.

"I had my first child at 16," she said. "I had never had a job before. I had no clue. But they pushed me, and I am ever so glad they did."

Today Morales has risen from customer service representative to field supervisor at Maximus Inc., which helps state and local governments manage programs such as Medi-Cal. She is financially independent and happy, she said.

"I would not be in this position today if not for CalWORKs," said Morales. "There is no way they can eliminate this program."

Wagstaff, who helped craft CalWORKs, said he is confident it will survive. "We have no instructions from anyone about shutting it down," he said. "But something big likely is going to happen."

Mecca agreed.

"It's been gratifying to hear from people on both sides of the aisle that eliminating CalWORKs would be unacceptable," said Mecca. "But the magnitude of the state's fiscal problems and the politics in Sacramento are such that we have to take every proposal seriously."

An earlier state budget proposal called for a 6 percent cut in CalWORKs grants, on top of a 4 percent cut scheduled to take effect July 1. It would have eliminated aid to children whose parents are being cut off because they've reached their 60-month time limits for welfare assistance, among other things.

Those cuts might seem palatable next to a proposal to eliminate CalWORKs entirely, Mecca said.

"There is a prevailing view that folks are being softened up for very serious, but less egregious, cuts," he said. "But if that's the strategy, it's reckless and irresponsible."

Palmer said the proposal is no bluff.

"This is not a test," he said.

Sigaba
06-08-2009, 14:17
From a slightly different angle, The Economist offered its assessment in a recent issue. Source is here (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=13702838).

California's budget crisis

No gold in state
May 21st 2009 | SAN FRANCISCO
From The Economist print edition

Voters reject a ballot they could not comprehend


AT ONE point during his desperate campaign for six ballot measures meant to reduce California’s gaping budget deficit, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor, pleaded with voters not to make California “the poster child for dysfunction”. But on May 19th they did exactly that.

Confused and bored by the wonky and tangled wording on the ballot, most voters ignored the election entirely. Those who did turn out rejected all measures except one that freezes legislators’ pay during budget-deficit years—a ritualised form of venting general anger. Mr Schwarzenegger, already unpopular before this crisis, may well now be remembered as a failure. On election day, he fled the state for the more flattering photo opportunity of joining Barack Obama in the White House Rose Garden to announce tighter national fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

As a result of California’s election, the state now faces a $21.3 billion gap between revenues and spending. Life, which has been no picnic for many in this state since the recession began, is about to get a lot worse. There have already been two rounds of budget cuts since last autumn. A third, savage, round must now follow.

Mr Schwarzenegger has already hinted at the cuts he will propose to the legislature. The easy part is to release prisoners. California’s 33 prisons, with about 168,000 inmates, many of them locked up because of inflexible sentencing laws passed by voters, are scandalously overcrowded. Mr Schwarzenegger is thinking about freeing 38,000 people. Half of them are undocumented immigrants whom he would transfer to federal custody.

But “the real money is where the pain is”, says Jean Ross of the California Budget Project, a research firm in Sacramento. In health care, for instance. Just as Mr Obama is trying to give more people access to medical care, California will be taking it away: by cutting funding for Medi-Cal, the state’s programme for the poor, and changing eligibility rules for another programme so that 225,000 children are likely to lose coverage. And this at a time when many of their parents are losing their jobs and their employer-sponsored insurance.

Other programmes, from help with birth-control and HIV-prevention to counselling against drug abuse and domestic violence, will be made smaller or eliminated altogether. Child-welfare programmes will be cut by 10%. This means fewer investigations into allegations of child abuse and less supervision of foster care, even as more children are likely to be abused in difficult economic times, says Linda Canan at the Napa County Health and Human Services Agency.

Cuts in the education budget will probably shorten the school year by a week, require teachers to be laid off and cause classes to get bigger. The University of California, a network of ten campuses, will face cuts equivalent to 50,000 fewer students and perhaps 5,000 fewer staff.

It doesn’t end there. A plan, previously rejected, to drill for oil off the coast near Santa Barbara will be revived. And a statewide yard sale will be held. State properties, from a big coliseum in Los Angeles to concert halls and fairgrounds, will be auctioned off. Even the San Quentin prison, built during the gold rush and housing the state’s death row, may go. Jeff Denham, a Republican state senator who votes resolutely against any attempt to raise taxes, has for years wanted to move the prison to a cheaper place inland in order to sell its “ocean-front property” in the bay north of San Francisco. He may now get his way.

Richard
06-08-2009, 15:49
How about Welfare - The End of California? ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

CPTAUSRET
06-08-2009, 15:56
How about Welfare - The End of California? ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin


Catchy title! Works for me!

Sigaba
06-08-2009, 16:35
How about Welfare - The End of California?

Catchy title! Works for me!

We'll be back.:cool:

I hope.:eek:

GreenSalsa
06-08-2009, 18:03
first hand reporting...bear in mind I am married to a Latina

My daughter attends a school in Monterey county where there are 7 kindergarten classes. Five out of the 7 classes MUST teach in Spanish (as a primary language) because over 71% of my daughters "peers" do not comprehend English.

California is a WONDERFUL state but must come to grips with the overwhelming illegal immigrants residing in the system, devouring resources, in order to provide basic services for its legal citizens.

{I wonder if there is a lawsuit somewhere in there...failure to provide basic services by ignoring criminal behavior...}

mojaveman
06-08-2009, 18:25
With the exception of the six years that I spent in the military and a few years that I lived in Europe I've lived in California all of my life. The state of affairs here have never been worse. Welfare recipients for years have come to this state because the benefits here were better than anywhere else. What happens now remains to be seen. If the welfare folks go to another state my guess is that those other governments will be forced to do what's going to be done in California. On a larger view what's going on in this country right now really leaves much to question. I sometimes wonder if when we recover from this thing that it isn't going to leave us with some permanent scar tissue or alter our standard of living somewhat.

Defender968
06-08-2009, 19:41
With the exception of the six years that I spent in the military and a few years that I lived in Europe I've lived in California all of my life. The state of affairs here have never been worse. Welfare recipients for years have come to this state because the benefits here were better than anywhere else. What happens now remains to be seen. If the welfare folks go to another state my guess is that those other governments will be forced to do what's going to be done in California. On a larger view what's going on in this country right now really leaves much to question. I sometimes wonder if when we recover from this thing that it isn't going to leave some permanent scar tissue or alter our standard of living just a little.

Considering the current spending trends of those in DC, and the fact that gov deficit spending is basically just spending taxes they haven't levied yet, I can pretty much guarantee that the standard of living is going to go down, and we haven't even gotten to the health care debacle. As we march down road towards the European socialization model you can expect to pay the taxes that go along with that model, well over 50% in many European countries. :mad:

Box
06-08-2009, 20:52
...how devastatingly 'modern' that somehow welfare will fail because we have spent SO LONG wasting it on bullshit programs, that NOW those that have a legitimate need for the 'charity of government' are going to get the shaft.

Welcome to the amusement park known as the US government...

...now open most of the day several days a week.

Pete
06-09-2009, 04:59
Don't look for a big change yet.

This ploy is just like Moose Butler, our sheriff. When he does not get the budget he wants from the county he fires the school crossing guards. The parents raise heck with the commisioners and he gets his budget.

Look for CA to cut a few programs, get the rabble stired up, run some PSAs and then revote the 8 measures. They'll all pass then.

The average voter is so stupid.

Richard
06-09-2009, 05:08
I grew up in NorCal in the 50s-60s - left in 1970 when I was drafted - settled in Texas upon retirement and am not leaving the Lone Star State - the on-going situation in CA and the way it looks to be going for the remainder of my lifetime is the reason I sold our ranch in Elk Grove. I'll still go out there to visit the kids, grandkids, and wineries (Alexander Valley region for me) - and then come back where the people remain - for the time being - a bit saner - and no jury would convict you for defending family and property.

Richard's $.02 :munchin