California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - making last minute cuts to the budget - eliminated all of the state funding for domestic violence shelters. That's right - all of it.
Although the state Legislature submitted a budget with a 20 percent reduction to the $20.4 million the state provides to agencies that offer domestic violence services, Schwarzenegger slashed the funding by 100 percent Tuesday.For Catalyst, which relies on state funding for nearly 35 percent of its operating budget, the affect will be "devastating," Executive Director Anastacia Snyder said.
"We're still in shock," Snyder said Wednesday afternoon. "We were bracing for the 20 percent cut, but did not believe the governor could, with a clear conscience, cut 100 percent of funding for services that keep women and children safe and alive."
If you're a resident of California, please click on Stop Family Violence's action alert to urge lawmakers to reinstate funding for the programs that save women's lives. If you're not in CA - pass this on to someone who is! You can also post the following message to your Facebook account, or tweet it: CA Gov Eliminates funding for Domestic Violence Programs. Lives will be lost. You can help! CA residents click http://bit.ly/3jKQSo
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Schwarzenegger eliminates funding for DV shelters.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15227
sad. horrible. awful.
Just goes to show that women's lives and safety are still seen as a side note to "real" issues. Fuck that.
"Just goes to show that women's lives and safety are still seen as a side note to 'real' issues. Fuck that."
Hear, hear!
I think this shows that many men recognize DV with the same trepidation that they recognize rape. They can't believe it really happens to the extent that it does, because they don't want to sell out other men or they're afraid of an accusation. Or, because rates of reporting and conviction are so incredibly low, they believe it isn't a problem, without understanding that this belief contributes to the low reporting and conviction rates.
Also, I have been wondering lately if men's apparent insensitivity to rape and DV (and abortion and everything else) come from the fact that women don't talk to men about it for fear of judgment. The last time I told a guy about being sexually assaulted, he immediately questioned whether I resisted enough, saying "if you didn't say no, it doesn't matter." I mean, I know friends who have been raped, stalked, beaten by exes, and have had abortions, but it seems like my male friends don't even know this stuff has happened to so many women in their peer group. Because women don't want to be judged, so they are more likely to share it with other women who have likely had a similar experience (if not rape, sexual assault. If not a beating, a stalking. If not an abortion, a pregnancy scare.) All these things that men don't experience to the same degree or in the same numbers, or at all.
I think your answer lies in "All these things that men don't experience to the same degree or in the same numbers, or at all." It's one of the privileges of being male, after all.
I'm a strong proponent of the people need to experience it, to understand it, argument*, though I am not promoting violence against men. I used to be someone who believed that women couldn't change their minds about having sex, or that rape had to be by force. I changed my outlook only after I realized how women around me were traumatized by sexual violence, and only after living long term in such a "rape friendly" culture as Japan.
I just posted this as my status on Facebook and a friend of mine tried to defend the Terminator's decision ("The state is broke-what can you do?"). RAGE.
I think the Terminator should have stuck to acting.
I really recommend that everyone call one of the governor's offices. The Sacramento line was busy, so I left a message in the SF office with my name and number, telling them it was simply unacceptable to drop the funding.
Please call---petitions are great too, but calls make an impact because they tie up phone lines and staffers.
How could he do that? Just how?!?!
I don't even live in CA and I'm so angry right now....
It's not just domestic violence prevention that got cut/had their budget cut more, as well as HIV/AIDs prevention, other health services including a program designed to provide low income children with insurance.
However they increased money to build a wing on Death row. It's not just that their broke it's that social services that help those in most need are the ones considered expendable. As someone pointed out, instead of raising taxes on cigarettes or alcohol programs were cut and state parks were closed down. I'm not a big fan of taxing cigarettes and alcohol but at least those will affect a broad section of the population from ALL income brackets.
Thanks for this.
You know, I was about to snidely post, "What next, medicine for poor babies?"
But apparently, that's actually happening too, so now I'm at a complete loss for words.
Actually taxing alcohol & cigarettes is a regressive tax. In the case of cigarettes strongly so--that's why they're so popular with conservatives.
Good Lord...who does that? Who sees a budget crisis and decides to fix it by cutting funding for DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS? Does the Governator even *have* a soul? (And didn't the state of California recently spend millions on Michael Jackson's funeral? Why couldn't that money have gone to these shelters?)
Let's not forget the huge cuts to education that are going to raise class sizes for just about everyone in the state, too, and the fact that no amount of vice taxes are going to be able to turn those cuts around.
California was $26.2 BILLION in the red. Their state constitution is all sorts of screwed up when it comes to levying taxes, to the point where they need to put a lot of tax hikes up for public referendum. This ultimately falls on a government that didn't want to be fiscally accountable and a public that was shortsighted in their voting.
The budget crisis in Cali is going to crush a lot of social services. Hopefully it brings about the government reform necessary to mediate these problems in the future, because until California can actually pass emergency taxes it's just going to yo-yo between riding high and falling flat on its face.
This wasn't a shock. They're cutting every human service in California, from law enforcement to health insurance for kids to AIDS prevention to prisons (new death row building aside, they're releasing a lot more prisoners). California deserves a government capable of handling its finances, and that means amending the state constitution so that every emergency tax doesn't get shot down by the public or dies because it needs a huge majority.
This is so supremely messed up. Does anyone from CA have statistics on how full their shelters have been? I know that since the start of the recession, the shelter I work for has been at 127% capacity. We underwent some budget cuts (like most nonprofits) but, praise be, Minnesota still prioritizes safety and shelter for women and children.
Additionally, I’d love to give money to a few shelters in CA because of this—I don’t suppose anyone has any information?
I think the article I read said something like, over 150 women/children are basically going to become homeless at any given time because of the funding cut.
MN resident here. I shudder to think what would happen if the DV shelters closed, especially come winter.
Windchill at -30°F, and -18°F without windchill. Temperatures regularly below 0°F at night... I think there is a reason why our state takes shelters so seriously.
I'm interning for a non-profit called Women Escaping a Violent Environment (WEAVE) this summer. It's Sacramento-based and we just opened our second safehouse (which is already at full capacity). Our funding was already drastically cut before this shitty decision, so if you're feeling generous, please donate to WEAVE!
http://weaveinc.org
Also, the Walnut Avenue Women's Center in Santa Cruz is a great organization. I don't believe they have a shelter, but they do help women in DV situations.
http://www.wawc.org/
A few emergency shelters I know of personally:
From my hometown: WEAVE (Women Escaping A Violent Environment) http://www.weaveinc.org/
From my current town: Marjorie Mason Center http://www.mmcenter.org/
This is repugnant. I don't know much about the issue except that he cut education as well. Could someone please inform me what he didn't cut?
Things he cut: DV shelter funding. Education funding pre-k through university. Medi-Cal funding for children's health. Medi-Cal funding for mental health. State parks. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Things he didn't cut: his advertising budget. In the early weeks of July, a commercial aired throughout the state with a heavily made-up Schwarzenegger sitting in his office, speaking directly to the camera, saying the reasons he will not sign the budgets presented. This commercial can be found here: http://standforca.com/
Come on California! Time to start legalizing and taxing that big profitable marijuana industry!
With the situation California is in, you should be glad you still have a police.
It were voters to block fund raising for cali through state bills, or whatever they are called, but of course the Governor is the bad guy.
I do not get all the rage against Arnold here. If the money isnt there, the money isnt there. He tried to raise money, voters said nay, why be angry at Arnold ? What should he have done in your opinion ? Spend money he does not have ?
Proud Feminist,
I am curious about why you chose the name Proud Feminist. Perhaps you could write a post on the community blog about a Feminist issue that is important to you? Why don't you tell us what makes you a proud feminist?
Looking forward to it,
~ Sabriel
This looks like either an accusation of trolling or a veiled insult.
Either way I have to say calling someone out like this seems kinda wrong. I didn't know we had to prove our credentials here in order to post.
And I, too, fail to see why this is all Arnold's fault. Cattrack2 does a great job explaining the problem with Cali's state constitution. This is the fault of the voters of California. They've been spending like crazy and then voting down the means to tax the people to pay for the spending. It's a state-wide equivalent of going nuts with credit cards.
What an ignorant statement. Approval by the voters (a 2/3 majority) is required only for raising property taxes. Other types of taxes such as income taxes and taxes on the sale of certain items do not. In fact, both houses of the California legislature approved a budget that would have raised income taxes on the wealthy and impose taxes on oil extraction. Schwarzeneggar vetoed it.
Well it was on the news. Some way to raise money, which would have added to the States dept though. Schwarzenegger implored the voters to pass whatever needed to be passed and it didnt. I think a treasury bill of sorts or something like that. The Americans on the board should know.
What I am complaining about is empty complaining. Like there is no word what he should have done instead, or cut instead or at least talk about how he did not take care of the states finances in time, assuming he is more than just a PR face for the current goverment who signs whatever his advisors tell him to sign.
I am (honestly) trying to figure out if proudfeminist is a troll or not, because most of hir comments have no purpose besides to criticize the original post. Maybe zie just likes to argue and tends to disagree. That's not the same as trolling and I have no problem with it.
The tag "ProudFeminist" though is a big of a red flag. It's the kind of name that trolls pick when they want to blend in.
Nobody has to prove anything to post here. People don't even have to be proud feminists to post here. Plenty of people comment regularly who don't identify as feminists and those people are still an integral and important part of the community.
However, I think it's a good idea if you're mostly here to argue with people, to do something to contribute in a more friendly way so that people will be more inclined to take you seriously when you disagree with them, given that feministing does have a serious problem with trolls.
I did not do trolling. My posts have always been on the topic. So far you have been the only one who had a problem with me and by the looks of it, your problem is that I do not join into the OMG Schwarzenegger is a monster for cutting the funding of womens shelters.
What I did was raise the points that the states finances are abissmal and that he probably had no choice, but to make those cuts, after an option for fundraising was blocked by a popular vote.
Now please go tell somebody else on how they need to redeem and proove themselves to you.
You are not my judge. You are crossing the line.
No offense to the Californians here, but as a former one myself, California government is a basket case. In the last 10 years California state spending rose by nearly 100%! That's 2-3X the rate of inflation. That's entirely unsustainable, esp. given the fact that it has the 3rd highest state income tax in the country.
The real culprit in this mess is the CA state constitution which essentially renders the state the largest direct democracy ever. Unsurprisingly the voters vote themselves high social services (eg, class size limits, etc) & low taxes. In fact just 1/3 of the state budget is even adjustable by the Legislature, the rest being fixed by either referendum or because its interest on the state debt.
Actually, California taxpayers are subsidizing the rest of the country. If you would end this subsidy, the state would be in fine shape.
A recent study by J. Scott Moody, senior economist for the Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org), demonstrates that Californians not only pay more federal tax per capita than most Americans, but also get less in return from the federal government.
In 2002, Moody reports, the per capita federal tax burden in California was $7,313-or 116% of the national average. On the other hand, per capita federal spending in the state was only $5,592-or 88% of the national average. For every dollar California sent in taxes to Washington, D.C., it received only 76 cents in return.
While its true California subsidizes the rest of the US, that has nothing to do with California's budget shortfall. If the federal income tax ended today, your budget shortfall wouldn't change 1 red cent.
"California illustrates the problem. Adam Summers of the libertarian Reason Foundation in Los Angeles has calculated that if it "had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average annual increase in the state's consumer price index and population growth each year since fiscal year 1990-91, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion budget surplus right now."
From the Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0730chapmanjul30,0,1207567.column
cattrack2, having to resort to citing something from a libertarian think (from the Chicago Tribune, no less!) is not a good sign for the tenability of your argument.
The fact is that the California budget has tracked inflation and population growth extraordinarily closely; it's exceeded it by only 0.2% per year.
The only way you get the ridiculous two to three times the rate of inflation talking point is by adding in federal money given back to California. Now what, pray tell, made you decide to add that amount to your detailed and thoughtful analysis?
Here are the basic facts about the state: despite all the gnashing of teeth, California is decidedly middle of the road in taxation, ranking 20 out of 50 with respect to cents paid to the state government per dollar, with Indiana and Kentucky.
Of course, California is a much bigger state, is responsible for much more of its own infrastructure than other states, and already has to subsidize a bunch of other states (the total amount given to the federal government exceeds what it receives back from it by tens of billions of dollars). Also, many of the regular costs of state government far exceed inflation--e.g. higher education, health care.
Taxes are incredibly hard to raise in CA, because there's an effective 2/3 requirement to increase taxes. Back in May there was an attempt to raise taxes through a special election; however, these propositions included a ton of poison pills, such as a hard spending cap (think TABOR in Colorado). Voters rejected all the propositions for various reasons.
That's where we are now, and why the state government is so utterly dysfunctional, and why we're throwing people in insane asylums out on the street so we don't have to raise taxes by 1% on people making six figure incomes.
Sorry, Zephyrus, your math is wrong. For the last decade state spending has gone up 7% per year on average--that exceeds even inflation + population growth.
Also, re: "having to resort to citing something from...the Chicago Tribune" The Chicago Tribune owns the LA Times. They frequently cross-list stories & share newsgathering, data analysis, polling, etc. Its not like the data is coming from Al Jazeera or the North Korean Sun Times or something.
Your numbers are coming from a questionable source, cattrack2.
Check out what the LAO has to say about historical budget trends:
"Real per–capita spending—which adjusts for both inflation and population growth—would increase by about 2.2 percent over the period under the Governor’s plan, for an average annual rate of 0.2 percent."
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2008/2008_pandi/pi_anl08004.aspx
As for the Chicago Tribune, it's known for being one of the most conservative newspapers out there. In its entire history, it's endorsed Bush over Kerry, Bush over Gore, Goldwater over LBJ, Hoover over FDR (indeed, it's only endorsed one Democrat for President in its entire history). Its conservative bent is pretty well-known, actually.
Zephyrus--You aren't reading what I'm writing. You're citing the state's proposed budget for the future . I'm citing actual spending over the past 10 years. Use the state's own data. In '98 CA's state budget was $67B & in '08 it was $138B-- that's nearly 8% annual growth! You're hurling around accusations about others without bothering to do the math yourself. I'm a liberal Democrat but the numbers are the numbers.
Again, you're simply not reading the data. I repeat:
* After adjusting for inflation, real spending has grown by roughly 18 percent over the entire period, or an annual average growth rate of roughly 1.7 percent.
* Real per–capita spending—which adjusts for both inflation and population growth—would increase by about 2.2 percent over the period under the Governor’s plan, for an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.
The numbers provided by the LAO _are_ historical, as in, already happened, as in, for the past ten years.
Just to reiterate for yet a third time, wherever you got your math from is simply wrong. Adjusting for inflation leads to a yearly growth rate of 1.7 percent; over that time population in California increased at about 1.5% annually. This yields a 0.2% inflation adjusted per capita spending increase rate, which is a good baseline.
So please stop sticking your fingers in your ears and saying that domestic violence victims should be tossed out on the streets because of stupid liberals in Sacramento who spend too much.
You are absolutely correct, cattrack2. True democracy doesn't work in an organization larger than a small New England town council.
In the most recent statewide California election, fewer than 10 percent of eligible California voters voted down what the Governor and Legislature had spent months working on, which would have solved the budget problems, raised taxes slightly, cut some services, and solved this whole mess much more quickly (to say nothing of saving money by making the recent budget negotiations unnecessary.)
A constitutional convention to make these changes is absolutely needed in California.
Signed: Yet another ex-Californian
I do not see how anyone can do something like this and survive politically and if they do then we as women are to blame. Not to mention men of conscious.
Why can't the government raise taxes on things like alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and, you know, things that are considered LUXURIES rather than cut funding to programs we NEED?
Because those are:
a. Regressive taxes
and
b. Can be struck down if put to referendum to the Californian public
Hasta la vista, safety.
As a California resident, I feel all the cuts to be upsetting, but at the same time, we are really broke and have no money. I can't just sign everything that comes along and say, no reinstate this program. People DON'T GET PAID ANYMORE, they get IOUs. If you get laid off from your job, you can file, but you will NOT RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS.
As for raising taxes, our taxes have already been raised across the board. State income tax raised. Sales tax in the State has been raised. Sales tax in Los Angeles has been raised. So my sales tax at 8.5 percent is now 9.75 percent, in 3 months. Trash service cost has been raised. I can't speak for alcohol or cigarettes, because I don't buy. Weed is only legal with prescription, so I think there's a dangerous slope in taxing prescription medicine, but I don't buy so I don't know the specifics. And tax breaks for the film industry have been cut, so production is leaving LA. That's a lot of jobs, a lot of loss of income, a lot of loss of state revenue. The 2nd largest prop house is shutting its doors, this weekend, that's telling. Drive during rush hour in LA, you'll notice a huge difference, people aren't going anywhere. Talk to anyone in the biz about trying to find work, no one is hiring. With the credit crisis- there's no money for new or independent production and crew budgets on existing projects are cut. What this means: less work, less often, for less pay. This is a big red flag, so much state income relies on the success of the entertainment industry. Now I sound like a f-ing republican.
This post borders on rant, but I get numerous emails every day from various liberal organizations that I dearly love and support, telling me to write my representatives about the loss of x, y, z program. Then you come here and read a variety of comments saying in essence, "for shame, for shame." But no one is offering a solution for the budget problem, no one is saying hey tax this, cut this program instead, or do this to bring in more income.
Please someone tell me what we can do to get our budget on track, I will gladly write my representatives about it. All I can think of is ending the death penalty (which in addition to be cruel and unusual punishment is expensive). Is there anything else?
Agreed,
Sales taxes are so high now that a lot of the smaller artisan shops are motivated to sell ( at least to trusted friends) 'under the counter'. It's the only way that they can give their clients a 10% discount and still be able to cover the higher prices they are facing for supplies, etc.
Work is tight and many of the smaller companies I know are also doing some of their hiring 'under the table' - for a lot less than the usual wage. (It doesn't help that everyone is expecting a crackdown on undocumented workers - and so many of the companies will only offer cash work because they don't want to be on the hook if the gov. starts looking to employer fines to fill the state coffers.) Cash means no CAL-OSHA, no SS, no insurance, no... nada.
House prices have fallen off a cliff, but just TRY to get your house valuation lowered for tax purposes. Not a chance! And since that tax is included in the already-high morgage payment? *ouch* Which hurts renters, because people who would lower the rent to keep good tenants can't - because the rent already doesn't cover enough of the now-much-higher DWP etc. bills.
Gas prices are high and going higher. Subway and bus fares were raised last year. *ouch* Grocery stores are closing in my neighborhood - and the ones that are left are no longer offering a lot of the 'high priced' things like organic produce. Half the booths at the local farmers market are empty -where they were full last year - and the reason I have heard is that the growers can't sell enough to justify the gas to bring it in.
Teachers are being laid off. Class sizes ( which were never what you'd call small) are getting bigger and resources are getting scarcer.
They are even talking about reducing mail delivery - which isn't that great now.
Everyone I know is hurting. Not just one industry or one level - everyone.
Maybe there is some secret money somewhere that can be found to cover all the things California needs - but if so I don't know where it is. So I have to add my voice to onemorefeminist.
Please someone tell me what we can do!
"...Maybe there is some secret money somewhere that can be found to cover all the things California needs - but if so I don't know where it is..."
I would have asked, what wasn't cut? but blue already did and lowercasejae answered "Things he didn't cut: his advertising budget."
If only this had enough secret money. :/
"...So I have to add my voice to onemorefeminist.
"Please someone tell me what we can do!"
I'm afraid I don't know either, but I just want to thank you, onemorefeminist, Zephyrus, etc. for taking our outcry here to the next level!
So we eliminate 100% of the governor's budget. I'd say OK. I'm all for less waste by the vulture party. Let him pay his own staff - he can afford it! How much good will that do?
In general terms:
California has an annual budget of roughly $102,258,193,000. Well, that was 2008 - but lets call it 100 billion - just to stay in round numbers. (With a deficit of just over 40 billion? If California was a human, it would be sending the credit cards down the trash disposal.)
California keeps fudging the figures on income, but if last year they spent 144 billion (as they did in 2008) and this year after cuts they are planning to spend 85 billion ( and issue a bunch of IOU's) then I'd guess that the 22% estimated 'budget gap' is calculated on the conservative side. (Pardon the expression.)
Where I sit 144 - 85 = 59
That's right - half the entire budget - even if you believe the figures on the page. Which I don't. If in 2007 and 2008 they spent something like 40% over what they estimated - and that in a time of high employment numbers and soaring read estate taxes - what is it going to cost this year when people are suffering.
I don't know what you could cut that would save 50 or 60 billion dollars.
I sure don't think you can cut that much without gutting something vital.
Yes we can raise taxes, but I don't think you can raise taxes by 40% ( the difference between the guestamate budget and the actual payout in 2007-2008) much less 60% ( worst case scenario).
Something has to be cut - something larger and more serious than one politician's personal ego fund. Something that will save at least 15 billion dollars. (Just to cover the gap between the proposed budget - forget actual costs.) So? Where would you make the cut?
(And Mina - I'm not dissing you. I know you feel the same pain. I'm just frustrated because I don't see any way out from where we are.)
"...Something has to be cut - something larger and more serious than one politician's personal ego fund. Something that will save at least 15 billion dollars. (Just to cover the gap between the proposed budget - forget actual costs.) So? Where would you make the cut?..."
Where would I make the cut? For starters, I'd consider partial cuts of programs instead of cutting anything vital 100%!
The trouble is, off the top of my head I'm not sure what can be safely trimmed where even in the Massachusetts state budget, so of course I'm even less sure about the California state budget!
Some longer-term money-savers come to mind:
* increasing energy efficiency in public buildings and public vehicle fleets
* improving public transit (urban mass transit, rural paratransit, etc.) so commuting to work is more feasible for more people and hopefully helps reduce unemployment somewhat
* shifting public school foreign-language education from the later years to the earlier years (more fluency per $! When I started Spanish I was such a pissed-off 7th grader about having to wait that long)
* investing in bargain foreclosed real estate to reduce "blight" and frugally help other public programs that could use the space
* there's got to be more that can be done...
but those can't lower expenses in time for either state's 2009-2010 fiscal year.
Meanwhile...speaking of billions...that order of magnitude reminds me of the federal stimulus...could some of that help bridge this gap instead of already being allocated...?
http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions#3 says
"Q: How will the Recovery Act work?
A: The different agencies -- such as the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Energy -- decide who will receive award grants and contracts. Sometimes the money will go to a state government; other times, the funds will go directly to a school, hospital, contractor, or other organization. As the agencies make these decisions, they deliver that information to the Recovery.gov team and, as we receive the data, we make the information available on Recovery.gov so you are able to track where the money is going. As more and more of the Recovery funds are distributed, you'll be able to search the website by state or even by Congressional district and look up names of Federal contractors and other recipients of Federal dollars. And, you'll be able to send in comments, thoughts, ideas, questions, and any responses you have to what you find."
This left me still not sure if all the not-yet-distributed funds have already been allocated.
Also, the federal site does link to state sites. http://www.recovery.ca.gov/HTML/RecoveryImpact/statistics.shtml says
"...NOTE: The above histogram depicts a snapshot of the distribution of federal recovery funds allocated to the state of California as of 06/30/09. The actual dollar amounts will vary as recovery dollars move from an estimate by the Federal Government to the actual amount awarded to California and eventually made available to the various programs and finally spent by those programs..."
So now I'm still not sure if any ARRA money hasn't been allocated yet and is still a possibility.
"...(And Mina - I'm not dissing you. I know you feel the same pain. I'm just frustrated because I don't see any way out from where we are.)"
I don't feel dissed at all!
The sight of all your math actually got me psyched. My gut reaction was sort of a "Yes!!! When we're going beyond just 'society should do something' to the nitty-gritty of who and what and how much, we're on the way to getting stuff done!!! :D"
As for feeling the same pain, I'm afraid it would be presumptuous of me to claim to feel the same pain you do about this since you're actually in California and I'm just trying to be sympathetic from over here in Massachusetts (hence my chiming in "here" on this
page).
The current 'budget' (I use the term with the greatest sarcasm) includes the stimulus money already - about 8 billion. It also includes 5 billion in borrowing, 5 billion of lottery money (that can't be raised unless the voters pass a new lottery bill, 1 billion from off shore oil drilling that won't happen (I pray),1 billion + of IOU's that the state promises ( maybe) to accept for payment of *next* years taxes, a hundred million or so from raiding 'special funds' ( read pensions) and 12.5 billion in "increased tax revenues" (much of which also require a vote that is not going to happen and the rest that is as reliable as a Governator campaign promise.)
So really California is going to take in about 73 billion ( if that) from the actual citizens and spend ... I couldn't guess, as those numbers are extra super top secret. But if it cost 140 billion when the times were good and people didn't need as much social help?
Right.
Long term savings are great and I am all for them. Investment is great. But there is no money left TO invest. Remember that the state already owes 40+ billion - which is maybe half of all income. The credit rating is in the toilet and the resources are gone.
We have had 20+ years of exploitation and expropriation of the California people. The basic infrastructure of roads, water, and power lines are overstressed *past* breaking. The schools, hospitals,libraries, cultural resources, etc have already been cut below the level of basic. There are no 'luxuries' left to cut.
California isn't debating how to spend the states money. That was five years back or more. Now - after all the mistakes and malice - there is no money left around to debate.
OH - and I love the idea of early language education. Except most schools don't have any language education. Bare-bones bilingual ( mostly via fake 'emersion' which just means pretending picking up English on the playground is good enough)but very rarely any actual language instruction.
"...Long term savings are great and I am all for them. Investment is great. But there is no money left TO invest..."
Exactly!
I was pretty frustrated that none of stuff that came to my mind was shorter-term, and that our states didn't make those investments back when times were better. My apologies for not clarifying this earlier!
What a fuckhead.
There is a FB group addressing this issue- we're trying to keep it updated with the latest news/debates/events surrounding the cut and public reactions. Please join 'Reinstate CA's Domestic Violence Shelter Funding!' and tell your friends... we need to keep this on the media front burner and take collective action to get at least SOME of the funding reinstated... we must figure out how to prove funding is an ESSENTIAL service and not a luxury!
Please join:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=108037904718&ref=mf
Also, MetaFilter just chimed in with a post by Four-Eyed Girl and a bunch of comments from other MeFites (see http://www.metafilter.com/83778/Schwarzenegger-cut-ALL-state-funding-for-domestic-violence-programs ).
This morning my readers are showing..No funding for domestic violence shelters..it is against the law to be homeless...it is against the law to feed a homeless person...it is against the law to be uninsured for healthcare..there will be a fine imposed on your income tax...this is progress??? Everyone of these laws and denial of services directly and forcefully (much like a punch) impacts the lives of women, single mom's and children... (women still don't make equal pay, daycare isn't even considered an issue, we don't even have an ERA in this country)...in the most horrific measure ..the basic necessities of life- food, shelter, clothing, and health what next...????
"...it is against the law to be uninsured for healthcare..there will be a fine imposed on your income tax..."
Is that anything like Massachusett's new system?
There are minimum income levels for the fine. It's meant for people who can afford health insurance, don't bother to get it, and have to pay out of pocket or default when they end up needing more care than they can afford in the emergency room or wherever. There's more info at http://www.esmarttax.com/2008-massachusetts-form-schedule-hc-instructions.asp
Meanwhile, Massachusetts expanded its public low-cost insurance options (paid for in part with those fines). There's more info at http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/
I am stunned. STUNNED!