When Governor Schwarzenegger released the updated proposed 10-11 State budget last Friday, replete with major program cuts designed to lead to a balanced budget, two programs dear to the hearts of Democrats were on the chopping block – CalWORKs and the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program.
Comments were soon made by the Governor’s staff that the money saved by eliminating these programs was around $ 6 billion, just about what is in the proposed State budget to fund the State Employee pension benefit for the year.
So, the stage has been set for the application of logic that goes like this – Democrats, if only you would agree to sweeping changes to the State pension system there would be enough money from that to save these two programs that you like.
One of the many dilemmas in this logic is that both the IHSS workers and the State employees are represented by powerful labor unions. Is it logical that one union will take a whipping in order that the jobs and benefits of the members of the other union will be saved?
It seems plausible that the Republicans are pleased that the table has finally been set for an either or dilemma like this one. Time will tell if the special interests will sit at this table and partake of the sparse offerings, or if they will just tip the table over leaving the mess that is usually what is called the annual budget of the State of California.
During a mania of channel flipping I happened upon a Sacramento legislative hearing on the government public service channel that was focused on this very issue. Several people from think tanks testified that CalWorks is cost effective, it forces welfare recipients to work for their welfare check and has led many to enter employment and leave the welfare roles. Two people testified that over 50,000 private sector jobs would be lost in California if the welfare money going to welfare recipients ended because “they spend this money on rent, groceries and other products and services provided by private sector retailers”. The Committee Chair asked a State Department of Finance representative if this potential fallout had been analyzed by the Governor’s staff (that includes the State Department of Finance) and the answer boiled down to “no.” Lastly, it was pointed out that under current law counties are required to aid the indigent and therefore the half million people enrolled in CalWORKS, 80% of which were reported to be children, would become the responsibilty of California’s 58 counties – basically what we have here is a cost shifting shell game it seems. I was left with the distinct feeling that the Governor’s proposal to eliminate CalWORKS is either not well thought out, or part of some kind of larger political agenda in Sacramento. Nothing is simple.