Wednesday, July 24, 2002

HEALTH BUDGET CUTS ALERT
July 23, 2002

* No major changes to report. Here are some more tools to continue budget advocacy work.

* BELOW is a sample phone script to assist organizations in calling their members to get them to call their legislators. We thank the many organizations that have put out action alerts, fax blasts, and mailers on the budget issue, yet there is no substitute for calling your members one-on-one and either patching them through to the appropriate number or just giving them a reminder and a tip on what to say. Obviously, this phone script should be adapted for the organization, the context, and the relationship with the member.

* BELOW is a sample op-ed by the PICO California Project, customized for a given area and signed by the local community leader. For those organization who can do it, this is another useful sample to work from, by folks who do the op-ed strategy well.

* BELOW is an article from Sunday's Sacramento Bee on the budget crisis, and specifically the health cuts, which details some of the debate. It's on the web at:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/3665146p-4690976c.html

----------------

DRAFT PHONE SCRIPT
Budget Cuts Campaign


Hi there. My name is ____________(first name), from _______________ (organization).

We are calling to ask our members to contact their state legislators to help to prevent severe budget cuts in education, health care, and ________ (public safety, the environment, your organization’s issue mix).

The State of California has entered a new year without a budget in place. The State Senate passed a budget, but the Assembly Republicans are blocking its passage.

We think they should have passed the budget by their deadline, don’t you agree?

The Senate already cut $7 billion from the budget, and the Assembly Republicans are pushing for more cuts, such as ______________ (immunizations for uninsured children, cancer research, emergency housing assistance, funding for low-performing schools, your example here).

We don’t think the California Legislature should make such severe cuts in core services, even if it means restoring some of the tax cuts California made during the boom years.

Would you make a call to Assemblymember ____________ (legislator’s name), to urge him to pass the Senate budget?

IF PATCH-THROUGH: [Could you do this right now? We can patch you through to his/her office right now, it would be very quick, and we would pick up the expense.]

All you need to say is that you want to leave a message for Assemblymember ____________(legislator’s name), that you are urging him to pass the Senate budget, (and that you wouldn’t mind having the recent tax cuts restored to prevent the severe cuts in ________(issue) being proposed.)

IF NOT PATCH-THROUGH: [His number is 916-XXX-XXXX. Do you need to write that down? Make the call right now. I’ll call tomorrow to see how it went.]

Thank you! You are really helping us protect important services on which we all depend.

----------------

Op-Ed
By Jim Orejel

Today we remain without a state budget. In the coming weeks, our local communities will start paying the price for the Legislature’s inability to reach an agreement. We’ll see community health clinics and childcare centers head towards bankruptcy as their funds are delayed by the budget stalemate, and the elderly and disabled will find key programs they need put on hold.

The hang-up? Taxes, of course. The agreement, passed by the State Senate and now pending before the State Assembly partially restores recent cuts in vehicle license fees to 1999 levels, hikes cigarette taxes and delays corporate tax breaks for two years. Most Assembly Republicans have indicated that they will not vote for a budget that raises taxes- even if these limited taxes make up only $3.5 billion of the plan to close a $24 billion budget gap.

Instead, Assembly Republican leaders propose deeper cuts in services to the poor, elderly and disabled. Specifically, they propose eliminating health care for 1 million low-income, working families- including 600,000 children. They propose ending continuous eligibility for children that would immediately throw nearly 500,000 children off of Medi-Cal.

These legislators are out of step. We know, because we have spent time here in Orange County talking with hundreds of families about the state budget. In our conversations, we have heard time and time again that people are willing to pay a little more in taxes to avert massive cuts in school budgets, law enforcement, or in health. We’re willing to be part of the solution if that solution protects our schools and the health of our families.

The California Health Care Foundation released a public opinion poll this week that confirms what we have been hearing all along. 94% of voters surveyed said they would support a tax increase of some kind to avoid making major cutbacks in health services to low income Californians and the disabled.

So why are the Assembly Republicans holding out? They have yet to come up with a plan to balance the budget without raising taxes. Assembly Minority Leader Dave Cox came out with some cuts on July 1st, yet this list only totals $588 million and falls far short of the billions needed to close the budget gap.

Assemblymember John Campbell, a Republican leader on the Budget Conference Committee and a proponent of massive budget cuts, said recently that legislators should only be concerned with providing “bread, shelter, and water.”

It’s time for regular people to get involved. It’s time for the Legislature to get over political bickering and pass a budget. Call your assemblymember today. Find out where he or she stands on the budget. Make your voice heard.

We deserve to live in a state that has a higher standard for families than bread, water and shelter.

Jim Orejel is the chairperson of the Orange County Congregation Community Organization, a federation of XX congregations working to improve the quality of life in Orange County.

----------------

STALLED BUDGET STREWN WITH THORNY DILEMMAS

By John Hill -- Bee Capitol Bureau - (Published July 21, 2002)


It would seem to be a simple matter.

The state is in a fiscal fix. It could save $155 million by making Medi-Cal recipients file paperwork four times a year, instead of only once. That would keep some people who no longer qualified for Medi-Cal from staying enrolled for as long as 12 months.

If only it were that easy. The question of quarterly reports involves complicated issues and tradeoffs -- the state, for instance, would miss out on federal money if it forced people off Medi-Cal. Many of those same people would need health care anyway, and the state could be left with the entire bill.

The stalled state budget is replete with such dilemmas, accounting in large part for a partisan standoff that shows no signs of abating.

Republicans in the Assembly say they won't vote for the budget approved by the Senate that depends on tax increases, including a two-year doubling of the state's vehicle license fee. They say the state can balance its books by making a number of tough decisions, from ending dental benefits for adult Medi-Cal recipients to reversing the recent trend of opening health care programs to more low-income people.

"We don't think you help things by allowing various sorts of people who aren't eligible to use a program," said John Campbell of Irvine, the ranking Republican in the Assembly on budget matters.

Democrats see the cuts as hard-hearted, as well as fiscally unwise. If Californians are in Medi-Cal or Healthy Families, another subsidized health care program, the federal government pays half to two-thirds of the doctor bill. If they aren't in these programs, their care will fall to emergency rooms or indigent-care programs whose total cost is covered by state and local governments.

"The idea that there's some fairy out there that pays for health care is absurd," said Sen. Steve Peace, D-El Cajon. Peace was chairman of a special six-member budget-writing committee that considered and rejected many of the proposed cuts.

Others point out that if the state is unwilling to cut anything that has a federal match, there wouldn't be much left to cut.

"Since the entirety of Medi-Cal involves federal funds, the logical result is that you don't touch Medi-Cal," said Dan Carson, director of the Legislative Analyst's Office health and welfare section. "We're stuck."

The $99 billion budget was approved by the Senate on June 30, two days before the start of the fiscal year, only to become bogged down in the Assembly. Democrats would have to win over four GOP members in the Assembly to give the budget the required two-thirds majority.

Much of the rhetoric has focused on cuts supported by Republicans in the conference committee and rejected by Democrats. Some of the cuts came from Gov. Gray Davis' budget proposals in January and May, some from the nonpartisan analyst's office and others from the Republicans themselves.

Republicans and Democrats don't agree on the total amount of the proposed cuts, much less whether to do them. Republicans say the total approaches $5 billion, enough to wipe out the need for new taxes called for in the Senate-approved budget and then some.

Democrats say that a more realistic figure would be in the $1 billion range, which still leaves a shortage to be covered by taxes or other means. Peace said that many of the health-care and social-service cuts would require federal waivers "beyond the realm of what we reasonably could get."

If you don't consider cuts to schools and local governments, two areas that both political parties agree they want to protect, the savings amount to about $900 million, Peace said. The only way to avoid tax increases, he said, would be to cut into the payments the state makes to local governments to make up for the revenue they lost from reductions in the vehicle license fee, or to reduce funding for schools.

Republicans, meanwhile, say they are reluctant to put out a definitive list of their proposed cuts without a signal that Democrats are willing to listen. Otherwise, they say, the Democrats will just latch onto one or two proposals to discredit them.

"There's no reason to go through the exercise until we get the message that there's a willingness to work with us," Campbell said.

In fact, it is not a simple matter to tally the proposed cuts. The analyst's office, which crunches budget numbers for the Legislature, hasn't done it. Carson called it a "very formidable" task.

One complication is that one cut could influence how much you would save from another. The Legislature could reduce the number of medical procedures the state covers under Medi-Cal, for instance. But then another possible cut -- cutting the rates the state pays to Medi-Cal doctors and other providers -- would not save as much, because there would be fewer Medi-Cal visits.

The budget is rife with such complications, a fact that can sometimes be lost in the daily partisan volleys over the standoff.

GOP lawmakers were willing to go along with the Medi-Cal quarterly reports proposed by Davis in May to help close the state's budget shortfall. They saw it as one step toward avoiding tax increases that would touch just about every Californian.

Democrats countered that the quarterly reports would not only force ineligible people off Medi-Cal, they would also throw off low-income people whose day-to-day struggles make it hard to keep up with paperwork.

The change also might not comply with federal law, they said.

The two parties can't even agree whether the $155 million figure takes into account the offsetting costs of government workers processing extra paperwork.

There was yet another element to the Democratic critique: What's wrong, they asked, with a few more low-income people getting health care for a few extra months? Why make people jump through hoops to get something that, after all, contributes to the common good?

"It's basically like making someone file their taxes four times a year," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access, a statewide health-care consumer coalition of 200 organizations.

Lawmakers considered cutting $263 million in Medi-Cal "optional" benefits, primarily dental care for adults. Democratic budget staff pointed out that the cut would probably lead some dentists to drop Medi-Cal patients because children alone don't make it worthwhile.

Then, too, people with untreated tooth pain might end up in emergency rooms, Democratic analysts say. People who lost teeth and couldn't get dentures would develop eating and speech difficulties, and have a harder time finding jobs.

Republicans countered that many small-business health-care plans don't cover dental care.

"A lot of people paying taxes to support Medi-Cal are supporting a health plan they don't get themselves," Campbell said, "and that's just wrong."

But cut funding for medical supplies, health advocates say, and people with diabetes might stop using test strips to monitor their condition.

"The consequence is delayed and denied care that could lead to serious health conditions, including, in the case of a diabetic who doesn't do the tests, amputations," Wright said.

Another controversial cut involved the Childhood Health and Disability Prevention Program, which screens poor children for health problems and provides immunizations.

Davis proposed cutting the $70 million program in January because many of the children covered by it also qualify for Medi-Cal or Healthy Families. The administration backed off in April after an outcry from health care advocates.

But Republicans brought it up again in budget deliberations, saying that the small percentage of children not eligible for other health plans could be covered by community clinics, which would get more state money for that purpose.

Democrats said the GOP misunderstood the purpose of the program -- to reach out to poor families and encourage them to get enrolled in subsidized government plans. And if those who didn't qualify for government health-care programs -- mostly the children of undocumented immigrants -- were not immunized, the whole population could suffer.

Much of the nitty-gritty budget debate has focused on issues like this. One of the major Democratic priorities in recent years has been to "remove barriers" to health care for the state's uninsured -- a number pegged most recently at 4.5 million people.

Democrats and health-care advocates say that it would be foolhardy to undo this progress. Wright estimates that all the cuts combined would drive as many as a million people into the ranks of the uninsured. That calamity could be avoided, they say, by simply returning to the vehicle license fee rate that existed a couple of years ago, raising taxes on cigarettes and taking a few other steps to temporarily boost revenues.

But Republicans point out that those measures, too, have consequences for Californians.

One of the tax measures approved with the Senate budget would suspend for two years the "net operating loss" deduction, which allows businesses to count losses against revenue in future years.

"It may be fine for a company that has millions or tens of millions of assets and can use cash flow to survive," said Greg Turner, legislative director for Cal-Tax, which advocates against what it sees as unnecessary taxes. "That's not so much true for smaller companies."

The two-year loss of the deduction could be a factor in some of those companies going under, he said.

California's treasury will only grow, Turner said, if businesses are allowed to thrive.

--
Anthony E. Wright
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 12:32 PM


 

Wednesday, July 17, 2002

BUDGET CUTS UPDATE
Wednesday, July 17, 2002
THURSDAY BUDGET EVENTS POSTPONED

The Thursday, July 18th press conference in the Capitol in Sacramento--to unveil over 50 higher-income signatories in support of upper tax bracket restoratio--is POSTPONED, and to be rescheduled at an appropriate time. Assemblywoman Helen Thomson, the anticipated host of the event, is unavailable; her husband had a heart attack earlier this week. We send our best wishes for his full recovery.

The Thursday, July 18th press conference in San Diego--to spotlight the Assembly Republicans there who have not voted for the budget--is also POSTPONED. That will likely be rescheduled next week.


LOS ANGELES EVENT TODAY: A Los Angeles event with ACORN, Health Access, SEIU, AARP, Gray Panthers, Americans for Democratic Action, and others had over 100 people rally in front of Assemblyman Keith Richman's office in Grenada Hills today, focusing on child care and health care cuts. Southern California radio listeners heard about it on KFI, KFWB, and KPFA, and it was mentioned in today's story in the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget17jul17.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia

--
Anthony E. Wright
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 2:07 PM


 

Monday, July 15, 2002

HEALTH ACCESS BUDGET CUTS UPDATE
Friday, July 12th, 2002

PRESS ITEMS OF INTEREST:
* A story generated by the Thursday press event in Fresno.
* A well-placed op-ed from Children Now on the budget crisis.
* A column in the Sacramento Bee dismantling the Assembly Republican argument.

We all need to continue to pursue press in each of these areas: sponsoring and participating in press events; placing op-eds and letters to the editor; and working with columnists and reporters to generates stories about the proposed cuts and their impact. Please contact us if you need assistance in any of these areas.

--
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/3545531p-4572093c.html

**Briggs urged to back proposed state budget

By Lisa Aleman-Padilla
THE FRESNO BEE
(Published Friday, July, 12, 2002, 9:58 AM)

A coalition of local leaders and state workers participated in a noontime news conference Thursday in an effort to persuade Assembly Member Mike Briggs to add his support to the state's proposed budget, which is 12 days late.

"We're calling on Assemblyman Briggs to do the right thing for the people of Fresno," said Lisa Lacey, communications director for the Service Employees International Union, which represents state workers and organized the conference.

The union is pushing for the state Assembly to adopt the Senate's version of the budget for the 2002-03 fiscal year.

The news conference took place in front of the State Building in downtown Fresno with about 40 people in attendance, some holding signs that read: "Mike, be a leader for Fresno" and " Budget, Fix it, Pass it, Pay us now!"

Briggs, who was in Sacramento Thursday, said through his District Director Nathan Magsig that the Valley is always his top priority, but that he was still unwilling to support the budget in its current form.

"Right now in the current state the budget is in, Mike cannot vote for it because it will cause more harm in the long term, he believes," said Magsig.

Briggs said in a separate statement that he was surprised that the Rev. Walt Parry and Fresno County Supervisor Juan Arambula, who were both present at the event, would criticize his actions on the budget without first calling him.

Parry said the news conference was an "opportunity" for Fresno to become aware of the choices elected officials are making during this budget process and how those decisions affect their lives.

"I've found it alarming that Republicans are willing to sacrifice the health and safety of the people they represent in order to support their political philosophy of no new tax," Parry said.

Briggs has said that he is opposed to the $3.7 billion tax increase in the budget, and favors less spending in the areas of health and social services.

He said raising taxes would only harm the state's fragile economy.

State employees who attended the event said that further reductions in the areas of health and social services will be especially hard for Fresno, which has one of the highest poverty rates in the state.

----
http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/fri/opinion/news_1e12arms.html

**Making the poor balance the state budget

By Amy Dominguez-Arms

July 12, 2002

Leading Republican legislators contend that the state spent irresponsibly when budget times were good, which they say is the major cause of California's $24-billion budget deficit. Let's consider their argument by examining exactly how spending has increased and how revenue sources have changed.

Those who believe spending is the problem point to a state budget that grew steadily throughout the late 1990s at an annual rate of about 8 percent. Those who call for increasing revenues to help ease the deficit note that the state's tax take has been significantly pared in recent years, such as a two-thirds reduction in vehicle license fees since 1998.

The economic expansion of the late 1990s contributed to higher state revenues, and schoolchildren were among the principal beneficiaries of the increased expenditures. California's per-pupil spending rose from $4,800 in 1994-95 to about $6,600 in 2000-01, improving our ranking among the 50 states and the District of Columbia from 40th to 33rd. This improved investment in schools reflected California's priorities then and now, as repeatedly documented in statewide polls.

Again following the public's lead, lawmakers targeted new budget investments to expand health coverage to children through the Healthy Families program and provide new funds for child care and after school programs. While many children remain without health coverage and child care waiting lists still surpass a quarter million statewide, measurable progress has been achieved. But today, many vital family programs are threatened by declining state revenues.

California lawmakers are faced with making budget decisions that will have repercussions for many years. As lawmakers consider what voters would want cut, they should also ask what they would want saved. We should be proud of the gains the people of this state have made in education, health care, child care and after-school programs, and fight to protect them, even as much more needs to be done.

This likely will require additional revenues. But the prospect of raising taxes - any taxes - is anathema to some policy-makers, particularly in an election year. Lawmakers in vulnerable districts worry that their support for tax increases will be used to demonize them in the fall election campaign.

However, California is an average tax state, ranking 21st among the 50 states when state and local tax revenues are considered together. An analysis from the California Budget Project shows that low-income households in California bear the highest tax burden. Households with incomes under $27,000 in 1998 paid 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes compared to about 8 percent for higher income groups.

In addition, this year wealthy Californians will gain considerably from the federal tax cut: those with incomes in the top 1 percent of all households will net an average of $51,717. One of the major legislative proposals to help close the budget gap (SB 1255) would impose a temporary tax hike on people in the upper brackets that would cost an average of $7,674 for these taxpayers, or about one-sixth of their federal windfall. This bill would raise $3.1 billion in 2002-03, sparing hundreds of thousands of California working families and their children from losing crucial access to health care and other programs. Such a temporary increase was last undertaken in 1991 by Gov. Pete Wilson and twice by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1967 and 1971.

California's revenue sources have changed in the last two decades. Since 1980, state income sources have shifted dramatically from corporate to personal income taxpayers, according to the California Budget Project. Corporate tax breaks enacted over the last decade cost $2.5 billion in lost revenues in 2001-02 alone. In 2002-03, personal income taxes are estimated to provide 54.8 percent of state general fund revenues, up from 34.8 percent in 1980-81, while in the coming year, corporate taxes are estimated to provide 7.6 percent of General Fund revenues, down from 14.4 percent in 1980-81.

In other words, some sectors of our community (corporations and the very wealthy) have seen their share of taxes decrease. As the Legislature and governor determine how to reconcile state revenues and expenses, the burden of closing the budget gap should be shared fairly among all Californians. But the major budget reductions now under consideration - including significant cuts to family health programs - would fall particularly heavily on low-income working families and their children.

A statewide poll released Tuesday by the California Healthcare Foundation found that 77 percent of voters agree that government should provide basic medical coverage to low-income or disabled adults who can't afford insurance. This proportion increases to 84 percent of voters when asked about government providing medical coverage to the children of low-income families.

Compromising family health and education to avoid taxing the wealthiest among us is a choice that doesn't add up for most California children and families.

Dominguez-Arms is vice president of Children Now, a child research and action organization based in Oakland.

---
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/weintraub/story/3528534p-4554654c.html

The Sacramento Bee

**Daniel Weintraub: It's time for would-be budget cutters to get real

By Daniel Weintraub - Bee Columnist

July 11, 2002

So many lists filled with potential budget cuts are floating around the Capitol these days that you might think the recommendations, added together, would wipe out the state's $23.6 billion deficit with room to spare.

There's the list that Sen. Dick Ackerman, R-Fullerton, offered up to the budget-writing conference committee. There's one his Assembly counterpart, John Campbell of Irvine, suggested. Then there's one put out by the Legislature's nonpartisan analyst. There is even a list of cuts proposed by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, supported by Republicans but rejected by the governor's Democratic allies in the Legislature.

As the stalemate over the budget entered its second week, I thought it might be fun to gather all the items on all the lists, eliminate duplication, add them up and see what happened. I came up with $2.5 billion.

That's not a small number. But it's still just $2.5 billion out of a $77 billion general fund budget. That's not even enough to wipe out half the tax increases that Davis has proposed as part of his borrow, tax and trim plan to postpone dealing with the budget mess until after the election.

A couple of caveats: In sorting through the proposals, I eliminated those cuts in kindergarten-through-community college programs that would require suspension of the state's constitutionally required minimum funding for the schools. As far as I can tell, no member of the Legislature is willing to go there. I also tossed out a few proposals to cut the prison budget by releasing felons before the end of their terms or sending them to the streets without parole supervision. Not going to happen.

I'm also counting only those reductions that would be ongoing. One-time cuts and deferrals look good at the moment but don't do anything to solve the state's permanent, structural gap between spending and revenues, which is pushing $10 billion.

What was left? Some pretty tough stuff. We would push thousands of poor people off state-paid health care by requiring them to update their income status quarterly rather than annually. This would save the taxpayers $155 million a year.

We'd eliminate a cost-of-living increase planned for welfare recipients at the end of this fiscal year, saving $12.5 million. Forgoing increases planned for the aged, blind and disabled would save about $75 million. And rescinding a recent expansion of health care for low-income two-parent families would net us about $92 million.

Here's a big one: The state would save $260 million by ending the provision of Medi-Cal services that aren't required by the federal government. So dental care to poor elderly patients in nursing homes would go. Adult diapers for the incontinent? Gone.

All of those cuts were proposed by Davis but rejected in the Legislature. Republican leaders say they support those and more. The Senate Republican list would wipe out general fund support entirely for a number of offices or agencies. They want to eliminate the Inspector General's office in the prison agency, kill off the governor's secretary for education and end all taxpayer support for most environmental programs, leaving them to subsist on federal funds and fee revenue. Altogether, about $150 million could be saved there.

Others would like to wipe out most of the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency, whose duties could be assumed by private chambers of commerce, and end state support for the Arts Council. Let's count that as $60 million.

Finally, the state universities and the University of California would get a good whack, since they are protected neither by federal law nor the state constitution. Fees and tuition, which represent a subsidy to the middle class and wealthy from people whose own kids either don't qualify or can't afford admission, could be increased. Raising fees by 10 percent in both systems would save taxpayers about $80 million. We could pick up another $30 million by increasing the student-faculty ratio by half a student per professor.

The UC's Institute of Global Conflict and Cooperation, which Senate Republicans note has been "ineffective at maintaining peace and cooperation in the world," could go. That would make us feel better and save $600,000.

The point here is that adopting every cut on every list so far proposed by anyone who has the ability to sway more than his own vote would reduce state spending to about $74.5 billion. We can take that figure, then, as the minimum amount that just about everybody in the Legislature agrees is necessary. And that's still more than the state expects to take in from tax revenues without a tax increase in the coming year.

Making those cuts would bring the budget closer into balance this year and make next year's problem easier to manage. But anybody who wants to argue credibly that this problem can be solved without at least raising taxes back to where they were four years ago is going to have to come up with several billion dollars more in spending reductions. And fast.

Does somebody out there have that list?

--
Anthony E. Wright
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 4:41 PM


 

HEALTH ACCESS BUDGET CUTS UPDATE
Friday, July 12th, 2002

PRESS ITEMS OF INTEREST:
* A story generated by the Thursday press event in Fresno.
* A well-placed op-ed from Children Now on the budget crisis.
* A column in the Sacramento Bee dismantling the Assembly Republican argument.

We all need to continue to pursue press in each of these areas: sponsoring and participating in press events; placing op-eds and letters to the editor; and working with columnists and reporters to generates stories about the proposed cuts and their impact. Please contact us if you need assistance in any of these areas.

--
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/3545531p-4572093c.html

**Briggs urged to back proposed state budget

By Lisa Aleman-Padilla
THE FRESNO BEE
(Published Friday, July, 12, 2002, 9:58 AM)

A coalition of local leaders and state workers participated in a noontime news conference Thursday in an effort to persuade Assembly Member Mike Briggs to add his support to the state's proposed budget, which is 12 days late.
"We're calling on Assemblyman Briggs to do the right thing for the people of Fresno," said Lisa Lacey, communications director for the Service Employees International Union, which represents state workers and organized the conference.

The union is pushing for the state Assembly to adopt the Senate's version of the budget for the 2002-03 fiscal year.

The news conference took place in front of the State Building in downtown Fresno with about 40 people in attendance, some holding signs that read: "Mike, be a leader for Fresno" and " Budget, Fix it, Pass it, Pay us now!"

Briggs, who was in Sacramento Thursday, said through his District Director Nathan Magsig that the Valley is always his top priority, but that he was still unwilling to support the budget in its current form.

"Right now in the current state the budget is in, Mike cannot vote for it because it will cause more harm in the long term, he believes," said Magsig.

Briggs said in a separate statement that he was surprised that the Rev. Walt Parry and Fresno County Supervisor Juan Arambula, who were both present at the event, would criticize his actions on the budget without first calling him.

Parry said the news conference was an "opportunity" for Fresno to become aware of the choices elected officials are making during this budget process and how those decisions affect their lives.

"I've found it alarming that Republicans are willing to sacrifice the health and safety of the people they represent in order to support their political philosophy of no new tax," Parry said.

Briggs has said that he is opposed to the $3.7 billion tax increase in the budget, and favors less spending in the areas of health and social services.

He said raising taxes would only harm the state's fragile economy.

State employees who attended the event said that further reductions in the areas of health and social services will be especially hard for Fresno, which has one of the highest poverty rates in the state.

----
http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/fri/opinion/news_1e12arms.html

**Making the poor balance the state budget

By Amy Dominguez-Arms

July 12, 2002

Leading Republican legislators contend that the state spent irresponsibly when budget times were good, which they say is the major cause of California's $24-billion budget deficit. Let's consider their argument by examining exactly how spending has increased and how revenue sources have changed.

Those who believe spending is the problem point to a state budget that grew steadily throughout the late 1990s at an annual rate of about 8 percent. Those who call for increasing revenues to help ease the deficit note that the state's tax take has been significantly pared in recent years, such as a two-thirds reduction in vehicle license fees since 1998.

The economic expansion of the late 1990s contributed to higher state revenues, and schoolchildren were among the principal beneficiaries of the increased expenditures. California's per-pupil spending rose from $4,800 in 1994-95 to about $6,600 in 2000-01, improving our ranking among the 50 states and the District of Columbia from 40th to 33rd. This improved investment in schools reflected California's priorities then and now, as repeatedly documented in statewide polls.

Again following the public's lead, lawmakers targeted new budget investments to expand health coverage to children through the Healthy Families program and provide new funds for child care and after school programs. While many children remain without health coverage and child care waiting lists still surpass a quarter million statewide, measurable progress has been achieved. But today, many vital family programs are threatened by declining state revenues.

California lawmakers are faced with making budget decisions that will have repercussions for many years. As lawmakers consider what voters would want cut, they should also ask what they would want saved. We should be proud of the gains the people of this state have made in education, health care, child care and after-school programs, and fight to protect them, even as much more needs to be done.

This likely will require additional revenues. But the prospect of raising taxes - any taxes - is anathema to some policy-makers, particularly in an election year. Lawmakers in vulnerable districts worry that their support for tax increases will be used to demonize them in the fall election campaign.

However, California is an average tax state, ranking 21st among the 50 states when state and local tax revenues are considered together. An analysis from the California Budget Project shows that low-income households in California bear the highest tax burden. Households with incomes under $27,000 in 1998 paid 12 percent of their income in state and local taxes compared to about 8 percent for higher income groups.

In addition, this year wealthy Californians will gain considerably from the federal tax cut: those with incomes in the top 1 percent of all households will net an average of $51,717. One of the major legislative proposals to help close the budget gap (SB 1255) would impose a temporary tax hike on people in the upper brackets that would cost an average of $7,674 for these taxpayers, or about one-sixth of their federal windfall. This bill would raise $3.1 billion in 2002-03, sparing hundreds of thousands of California working families and their children from losing crucial access to health care and other programs. Such a temporary increase was last undertaken in 1991 by Gov. Pete Wilson and twice by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1967 and 1971.

California's revenue sources have changed in the last two decades. Since 1980, state income sources have shifted dramatically from corporate to personal income taxpayers, according to the California Budget Project. Corporate tax breaks enacted over the last decade cost $2.5 billion in lost revenues in 2001-02 alone. In 2002-03, personal income taxes are estimated to provide 54.8 percent of state general fund revenues, up from 34.8 percent in 1980-81, while in the coming year, corporate taxes are estimated to provide 7.6 percent of General Fund revenues, down from 14.4 percent in 1980-81.

In other words, some sectors of our community (corporations and the very wealthy) have seen their share of taxes decrease. As the Legislature and governor determine how to reconcile state revenues and expenses, the burden of closing the budget gap should be shared fairly among all Californians. But the major budget reductions now under consideration - including significant cuts to family health programs - would fall particularly heavily on low-income working families and their children.

A statewide poll released Tuesday by the California Healthcare Foundation found that 77 percent of voters agree that government should provide basic medical coverage to low-income or disabled adults who can't afford insurance. This proportion increases to 84 percent of voters when asked about government providing medical coverage to the children of low-income families.

Compromising family health and education to avoid taxing the wealthiest among us is a choice that doesn't add up for most California children and families.

Dominguez-Arms is vice president of Children Now, a child research and action organization based in Oakland.

---
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/weintraub/story/3528534p-4554654c.html

The Sacramento Bee

**Daniel Weintraub: It's time for would_be budget cutters to get real

By Daniel Weintraub __ Bee Columnist

July 11, 2002

So many lists filled with potential budget cuts are floating around the Capitol these days that you might think the recommendations, added together, would wipe out the state's $23.6 billion deficit with room to spare.

There's the list that Sen. Dick Ackerman, R-Fullerton, offered up to the budget_writing conference committee. There's one his Assembly counterpart, John Campbell of Irvine, suggested. Then there's one put out by the Legislature's nonpartisan analyst. There is even a list of cuts proposed by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, supported by Republicans but rejected by the governor's Democratic allies in the Legislature.

As the stalemate over the budget entered its second week, I thought it might be fun to gather all the items on all the lists, eliminate duplication, add them up and see what happened. I came up with $2.5 billion.

That's not a small number. But it's still just $2.5 billion out of a $77 billion general fund budget. That's not even enough to wipe out half the tax increases that Davis has proposed as part of his borrow, tax and trim plan to postpone dealing with the budget mess until after the election.

A couple of caveats: In sorting through the proposals, I eliminated those cuts in kindergarten_through_community college programs that would require suspension of the state's constitutionally required minimum funding for the schools. As far as I can tell, no member of the Legislature is willing to go there. I also tossed out a few proposals to cut the prison budget by releasing felons before the end of their terms or sending them to the streets without parole supervision. Not going to happen.

I'm also counting only those reductions that would be ongoing. One_time cuts and deferrals look good at the moment but don't do anything to solve the state's permanent, structural gap between spending and revenues, which is pushing $10 billion.

What was left? Some pretty tough stuff. We would push thousands of poor people off state_paid health care by requiring them to update their income status quarterly rather than annually. This would save the taxpayers $155 million a year.

We'd eliminate a cost_of_living increase planned for welfare recipients at the end of this fiscal year, saving $12.5 million. Forgoing increases planned for the aged, blind and disabled would save about $75 million. And rescinding a recent expansion of health care for low_income two_parent families would net us about $92 million.

Here's a big one: The state would save $260 million by ending the provision of Medi_Cal services that aren't required by the federal government. So dental care to poor elderly patients in nursing homes would go. Adult diapers for the incontinent? Gone.

All of those cuts were proposed by Davis but rejected in the Legislature. Republican leaders say they support those and more. The Senate Republican list would wipe out general fund support entirely for a number of offices or agencies. They want to eliminate the Inspector General's office in the prison agency, kill off the governor's secretary for education and end all taxpayer support for most environmental programs, leaving them to subsist on federal funds and fee revenue. Altogether, about $150 million could be saved
there.

Others would like to wipe out most of the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency, whose duties could be assumed by private chambers of commerce, and end state support for the Arts Council. Let's count that as $60 million.

Finally, the state universities and the University of California would get a good whack, since they are protected neither by federal law nor the state constitution. Fees and tuition, which represent a subsidy to the middle class and wealthy from people whose own kids either don't qualify or can't afford admission, could be increased. Raising fees by 10 percent in both systems would save taxpayers about $80 million. We could pick up another $30 million by increasing the student_faculty ratio by half a student per professor.

The UC's Institute of Global Conflict and Cooperation, which Senate Republicans note has been "ineffective at maintaining peace and cooperation in the world," could go. That would make us feel better and save $600,000.

The point here is that adopting every cut on every list so far proposed by anyone who has the ability to sway more than his own vote would reduce state spending to about $74.5 billion. We can take that figure, then, as the minimum amount that just about everybody in the Legislature agrees is necessary. And that's still more than the state expects to take in from tax revenues without a tax increase in the coming year.

Making those cuts would bring the budget closer into balance this year and make next year's problem easier to manage. But anybody who wants to argue credibly that this problem can be solved without at least raising taxes back to where they were four years ago is going to have to come up with several billion dollars more in spending reductions. And fast.

Does somebody out there have that list?

--
Anthony E. Wright
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 4:41 PM


 

Thursday, July 11, 2002

HEALTH ACCESS UPDATE & ALERT
Wednesday, July 10th, 2002


NEW POLL ON BUDGET, HEALTH CARE, AND REVENUES: Yesterday, the California HealthCare Foundation and The Field Institute released a poll showing that large majorities of registered California voters oppose making cuts to health care programs for low-income and disabled Californians or to the public schools, and if it came down to a choice of increasing taxes to avoid making major cutbacks in medical care services to low-income Californians and the disabled, voters would favor a number of possible tax increase alternatives. BELOW is the press release. The full findings and survey results can be gotten at: http://www.chcf.org/topics/view.cfm?itemID=19814

The press covered the results, including the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, and the Los Angeles Times (with other items). Here are links:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/3517486p-4546087c.html
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/3635870.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget10jul10.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia

--

** CALENDAR OF BUDGET EVENTS: Here are some events that are scheduled in the next week on the budget crisis. Other events include one in San Diego, focused on the many legislators in that area who are central in this crisis, and another later in July to focus on the institutions that will be financially hurt -- as will the people they serve -- if the budget is not passed by the end of the month.

FRESNO EVENT THURSDAY: Press Conference focusing on Assemblyman Mike Briggs of Clovis and Fresno. Scheduled for Thursday, July 11, 2002, at 12noon, at the State Building, 2550 Mariposa Mall, Fresno, CA. Speakers include: Juan Arambula, Fresno County Board of Supervisors; Rev. Walt Parry, Fresno Metro Ministry and Local Health Care Coalition; Cliff Downing, Deputy Probation Officer IV, Fresno County; Nancy Marsh, Fresno Madera Quality Homecare Coalition; Robert Merrill, California Faculty Association

LOS ANGELES/VENTURA EVENT NEXT WEDNESDAY: Press event combined with community delegation visiting the office of Assemblymember Keith Richman of Northridge. Will raise Assemblyman Richman's record of championing health care expansions, and asking him to "step up to the plate" on the budget issue. Scheduled for Wednesday, July 17th, 2002, at 12noon, at the Assemblyman's office at 10727 White Oak Avenue #124 in Grenada Hills, CA. Speakers TBA.

SACRAMENTO EVENT WITH UPPER TAX BRACKET SUPPORTERS: Assemblywoman Helen Thomson and other legislators will sponsor an event next Thursday to unveil an "open letter" in support of upper tax bracket restoration, signed by over 50 individuals who would be subject to the upper tax brackets, including doctors, actors, lawyers and business people. Scheduled for Thursday, July 18th, at 9:00am, in the Governor's Press Room 1190, at the Capitol in Sacramento. IF YOU KNOW PEOPLE IN THE UPPER TAX BRACKETS THAT WOULD SIGN UP, PLEASE DIRECT THEM TO http://www.health-access.org/openletter.htm, where they can get more information, sign the open letter electronically, and see the most up-to-date list of signatories. IF THEY ARE POTENTIALLY INTERESTED IN SPEAKING, please let Anthony Wright know, at awright@health-access.org, or at 916-442-2308.

----

PRESS RELEASE
FROM THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FOUNDATION:

Voters Want Public Schools and Medi-Cal Spared from Budget Cuts Favor Tax-hike Proposals to Avoid Major Cuts in Medical Services to California's Low-income Families and Disabled

61 Percent of Insured Voters Are Concerned That They or Someone Close to Them Might Be Without Health Insurance Coverage in the Near Future

A survey released today by the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) and The Field Institute finds that large majorities of registered California voters oppose making cuts to health care programs for low-income and disabled Californians or to the public schools.

When asked which state spending areas they would favor or oppose trimming to reduce the state's budget deficit, 78 percent of voters opposed cutting spending for the public schools and 76 percent opposed cuts to health care programs for low-income and disabled Californians.

By contrast, large proportions of voters favored cutbacks in state prisons and corrections (46 percent), state energy contracts supplying California with electricity (43 percent), state parks and recreation (41 percent), and environmental regulations (40 percent).

According to the poll, which was conducted by telephone among 1,052 registered voters between June 25 and July 2 in English and Spanish, if it came down to a choice of increasing taxes to avoid making major cutbacks in medical care services to low-income Californians and the disabled, voters would favor a number of possible tax increase alternatives.

The survey results also indicate that large majorities of voters are supportive of providing basic medical and dental coverage to low-income and disabled adults as well as offering these same services to the children of low-income families.

"The survey helps to bring voters into the budget deliberations in Sacramento," said Mark D. Smith, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of the California HealthCare Foundation. "The findings clearly show that the Medi-Cal program is one of the areas voters want spared from the budget axe, and if it came to that, they would support a number of tax increase possibilities to avoid making medical service cutbacks to the state's most vulnerable residents."

Currently, nearly 6 million Californians receive health and medical benefits through Medi-Cal, a $27-billion program funded jointly by the state and federal governments. Medi-Cal accounts for the second largest share of California's general fund expenditures. The poll, sponsored by CHCF's Medi-Cal Policy Institute, is an attempt to assess voter preferences in dealing with the state budget deficit. It also sought to measure voter reaction to proposed cuts in the state's Medi-Cal program, which provides health care services for low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled.

The poll found the following:

By a 76 percent to 21 percent margin, voters oppose the idea of cutting health care programs for low-income Californians and the disabled as a way to reduce the budget deficit. Opposition to making cuts to the state's Medi-Cal budget was greatest among registered Democrats (83 percent), non-partisans (81 percent), black/African Americans (88 percent), and Latinos (80 percent), but two in three Republicans (66 percent) and three in four white non-Hispanic voters (75 percent) also oppose cutting this part of the budget.

When voters were asked whether they would favor or oppose eight possible tax increase proposals as a way for the state to avoid making major cutbacks in medical services to low-income Californians and the disabled, 94 percent support at least one of the eight tax options. Receiving the broadest support were a 5-cents-per-serving increase in state alcohol taxes (78 percent), a 50-cent-per-pack increase in tobacco taxes (74 percent), temporarily increasing the personal income tax rate of the state's top income earners (68 percent), and canceling the scheduled cuts in state motor vehicle registrations fees (53 percent).

On the other hand, just 28 percent of voters support temporarily increasing the state gasoline tax by 5 cents per gallon as a way to preclude major cutbacks in the Medi-Cal budget. In addition, just 34 percent favor temporarily increasing the personal increase tax rate for individuals earning more than $37,000 and couples making more than $75,000 for this purpose. Voters oppose temporarily increasing state sales taxes by 1 percent to avoid Medi-Cal budget cuts by a 59 percent to 40 percent margin. Voters are somewhat more divided (50 percent opposed and 45 percent in favor) when asked about temporarily increasing state business income taxes to forestall major Medi-Cal cutbacks.

By a 64 percent to 29 percent margin, voters oppose reducing payments to doctors and hospitals who treat low-income and disabled Californians as a way to reduce the Medi-Cal budget, when told that California ranks 42nd among the 50 states in how much it pays doctors to treat Medi-Cal patients.

In addition, by a similar 64 percent to 30 percent margin voters oppose eliminating some health benefits now offered to low-income families and the disabled, like dental services, as a way to reduce the deficit. However, a proposal to make fewer low-income families eligible to receive medical coverage under Medi-Cal by tightening income requirements was supported by a 53 percent to 41 percent plurality of voters.

The poll also finds one in five voters (20 percent) reporting that they themselves have gone without health insurance within the past two years. However, the proportion without health insurance in the past two years expands to 39 percent when voters are asked to include not only themselves but also others for whom they are financially responsible. Among voters with health insurance, 61 percent are concerned that they or someone close to them might be without health insurance in the near future. Most likely to report great concern about a loss of health insurance coverage are Latinos, black/African Americans, and voters with household incomes of less than $40,000 per year.

A majority of voters support the basic tenets of the state's Medi-Cal program. For example, 77 percent agree that government should provide basic medical coverage to low-income or disabled adults who can't afford insurance. This proportion increases to 84 percent of voters when asked about government providing medical coverage to the children of low-income families. Two in three voters (66 percent) also agrees that government should provide basic dental coverage to low-income or disabled adults who can't afford insurance, and 78 percent say this in relation to the children of low-income families.

About six in 10 voters (58 percent) recognize that state government finances have worsened in the past year and 88 percent describe the state's budget deficit as very or somewhat serious. Recognition of the worsening financial situation is greatest among older voters than younger voters, and among Republicans than Democrats or non-partisans. These same subgroups are more apt to describe the state's budget deficit as very serious.

Voters offer a mixed assessment of the amount of state and local taxes they currently pay. A third (32 percent) describes the amount they pay as "much too high," another 30 percent say they are "somewhat high," and 34 percent feel they are "about right." By contrast, just 2 percent describe the level of state and local taxes they pay as "too low."

Nevertheless, when asked whether they felt taxes would have to be increased in order to resolve this year's budget deficit, more voters (49 percent) feel that taxes will have to be raised than do not believe this is the case (39 percent).

The California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) is an independent philanthropy committed to improving California's health care delivery and financing systems. CHCF's Medi-Cal Policy Institute is an objective source of information on the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs. Additional information related to Medi-Cal and the budget is available through the links below.

The Field Institute, based in San Francisco, is an independent, non-partisan public policy research organization devoted to the study of public opinion and behavior on social and political issues in California.

About This Survey

The results in this report are derived from a statewide survey of California adults conducted by The Field Institute for the California HealthCare Foundation. The survey was administered by telephone June 25 - July 2, 2002, in English and Spanish among 1,052 registered voters in California. Sampling was conducted by means of random digit dialing, which selects telephone exchanges within all area codes serving California in proportion to population. From each exchange a random sample of telephone numbers was created by adding random digits to the telephone exchange selected, permitting access to both listed and unlisted telephones. In order to increase the sample size of Latino voters, the main sample was supplemented to retrieve at least 200 Latino voters. After the completion of interviewing, the survey results were weighted slightly to Field Institute estimates of the state's registered voter population by region, gender, age, political party, and ethnicity. Results from the overall voter sample have a sampling error of +/- 3.2 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. Results from subgroups of the overall sample have somewhat larger sampling error ranges.

Contact Information

Karen Hunt
California HealthCare Foundation
510.238.1040

--
Anthony E. Wright
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 9:13 AM


 

Monday, July 01, 2002

HEALTH BUDGET CUTS ALERT
Monday, July 1, 2002


BUDGET FIELD STRATEGY MEETING: Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 2nd, 9:30am.

AARP, PICO, SEIU, League of Women Voters, California Labor Federation, and other groups will be having a small meeting tomorrow, TUESDAY, JULY 2nd, from 9:30am - 11:00am, to discuss a field strategy around the budget issues. The meeting will be at AARP at 980 9th Street, Suite 700, in Sacramento.

Everyone is invited. PLEASE ATTEND if your organization has field capacity (ability to generate phone calls, letters, faxes, and turnout for actions) and has made the budget a priority issue to work on. Many groups have begun their own field strategies and actions, and this is a venue to coordinate strategies, or at least have them complement each other, as well as to figure out where the gaps are, and where other organizations can plug in most effectively.

--
Anthony E. Wright
Director of Organizing
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 1:12 PM


 

HEALTH BUDGET CUTS UPDATE
Sunday, June 30, 2002

ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS BLOCK PASSAGE OF BUDGET
Health Issues Raised In Debate...

The Assembly voted 49-26 Sunday on the budget bill the Senate adopted the day before, falling short of the 2/3 vote needed for final passage. The 2002-03 fiscal year will start July 1st, without a budget in place.

In related news, the Assembly was able to transfer the $1.7 billion in education funds into the new year. An item of contention with Assembly Republicans and formerly in need of a 2/3 vote, the education transfer was passed by the Assembly which found a way, one termed by Assemblyman Cardenas as "creative," to craft legislation that only required a majority. That bill passed, 48-27. This action prevented the need for an additional $1.7 billion in cuts or revenues for the 2002-03 budget year.

In lengthy debate, Republicans argued for a budget without increased taxes. Assemblyman Richman asked that "a mere 5% belt tightening" more would prevent the need for increased taxes. Assemblyman Runner, like others, argued about the process, calling for a five-way negotiations between the house caucuses and the Administration, saying "I don't know what to do with a $25 billion deficit. It's huge." He said it should be worked out in negotiations, which he indicated, "we aren't doing it... What happened to the process?"

Of interest to advocates for health care and the uninsured, health issues did come up with regularity, along with education and other issues. Assemblyman Steinberg talked about his dislike of the cuts to a range of areas, including Medi-Cal provider rates and cancer research, along with Healthy Start, housing, and mental health. Assemblywoman Goldberg raised the need for Healthy Families and trauma center funding. Assemblywoman Reyes talked about the people in her district who rely on the funding for key areas, including Medi-Cal and low-performing schools. Assemblywoman Thomson said "I don't like the fact that mental health programs are now back to the 1970s. We were making progress." She said that "working families and poor people bear the brunt" of the budget plan, and she disliked the fact that the budget did not ask of "millionaires a little more in income tax" to prevent more of these cuts. The Democrats ultimately said that while they disliked the cuts in the budget document, they felt responsibility to pass a budget.

The issue of quarterly status reports in Medi-Cal came up once again on a full house floor. Assemblyman Campbell, in making a larger argument that the budget includes unnecessary program increases, talked about a decision to expand Medi-Cal to "people who are not eligible. [We will give] more Medi-Cal to people who are not eligible than we did last year, intentionally... budgeted. Why do we even have eligibility [criteria]?" In her close, Assemblywomen Oropeza took time to refute some of Assemblyman Campbell's assertions, including the QSR issue. She said that the issue was not about eligibility, but about "manipulation" using paperwork to get people off a program. She said that people would fall off Medi-Cal "not because they are ineligible," but because they would be unable to "fulfill bureaucratic paperwork requirements." While in these debates, health advocates have had strong champions, the mere fact of debate suggests we have liabilities on this issue.

--
Anthony E. Wright
Director of Organizing
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 10:55 AM


 

HEALTH BUDGET CUTS UPDATE
Saturday, June 29, 2002

SENATE PASSES BUDGET PLAN
Assembly To Consider

With the required 27 votes, the Senate passed a budget Saturday afternoon. Senator Steve Peace broke it down as a budget plan that solves a $24 billion budget hole with $13 billion in spending cuts and $3.6 billion in increased revenues (with the remainder of the budget hole bridged with transfers, deferrals, and borrowing, such as the securitization of the tobacco settlement.) The Assembly is scheduled to come in Sunday, but it is unclear at this writing if or when they would pass a budget, or what it would look like.

The votes came from all Democrats and Senator Maurice Johannessen (R-Redding), who spoke forcefully for the plan as "the best budget we can possibly put out." He asked his Republican colleagues "what would you like to cut?" as he suggested that the only alternative was to "decimate" key programs such as rural law enforcement, or simply to say "to hell with schools."

TAXES: Republican Senators attacked the plan: "People are not engaged in torchlight parades demanding their taxes get raised," said Senator Ross Johnson (R-Irvine). The increased revenues included an increased tobacco tax, and a partial restoration of the vehicle license fee for one calendar year.

HEALTH TRAILER: The omnibus health care trailer bill (AB 442) passed by the same one-vote margin, with minimal debate, with Republican Senators Haynes, McClintock, and Brulte making comments. McClintock specifically attacked Healthy Families as a "bureaucracy," arguing that the money should have been used instead for prepaid, refundable tax credits for health insurance. Senator Peace reminded them that passing the trailer bill would reduce spending on health care, or otherwise such spending would automatically go up.

QSRs AND MEDI-CAL FRAUD: The Senate also took up AB 925 which dealt with Medi-Cal reporting. When the Conference Committee removed the requirement for Quarterly Status Reports (QSRs), it wanted to make sure to maintain the requirement that Medi-Cal recipients must reports changes in their income within ten days. AB 925 continues the 10-day requirement (previous legislation would have lifted the requirement on enactment of the Healthy Families parent expansion.) Senator Raymond Haynes argued for the reinstatement of quarterly status reports. Senator Jackie Speier argued that the real Medi-Cal fraud was in durable medical equipment, providers, and other areas, and not with the handful of families that may get health care yet are a few dollars over the federal poverty limit.

Senator Peace needed to explain the bill, and the issue of quarterly status reports, several times on the Senate floor. It originally got the same 27 votes that supported the budget, but Senator Brulte asked additional questions about the bill. Ultimately, he concluded that "this will results in savings to the state, but not as much" as they could get or would want as with QSRs. Senator John Burton interjected that the problem with QSRs is that they may "be in violation of federal law." Ultimately, the bill passed 37-2, with the issue of QSRs being one of the few and of the last specific provisions of the budget to be discussed on the full Senate floor.

Senator Burton announced that the Senate was in recess until 1:30pm on August 5th. It was unclear what action may be taken if the Assembly passes a different version of the budget, as it is likely to do, if it does so at all.

--
Anthony E. Wright
Director of Organizing
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 10:48 AM


 

HEALTH BUDGET CUTS UPDATE & ALERT
(Yogi Berra Edition: "You can observe a lot by watching.")
Friday, June 28, 2002

Update: CONFERENCE COMMITTEE (SORT OF) FINISHES; RECONSIDERS SELECTED HEALTH CUTS
Alert: MONDAY PRESS CONFERENCES CALLING ON A BUDGET SOLUTION BEYOND BREAD & WATER

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE FINALE? ("It ain't over 'til it's over"): The Conference Committee adjourn in what seemed for good late Friday night, without formally closing a final budget or signing a final report. Members gave speeches of thanks to one another and staff, and while disappointed in the lack of a final "work product," Senator Steve Peace indicated that "it would be a measure of success if we are not back." Items that prevented an agreed-upon report included whether the vehicle license fee restoration would last for one year or two.

The Senate and the Assembly are scheduled to convene this weekend, where they will presumably consider a budget (or versions of a budget) similar (although perhaps not exact) to what the Conference Committee has recommended thus far. However, there are no guarantees that the cuts or restorations made in the Conference Committee will be reflected in anything considered on a legislative floor. The official deadline is the end of the fiscal year on Sunday night, June 30, 2002. Since the Conference Committee is still technically open, if a budget is not passed this weekend, the Conference Committee could reconvene in the future.

These final acts came after a flurry of activity. The Conference Committee reconvened Thursday night, where it discussed many items, including much on the school funding equalization issue. On Friday, it went over outstanding issues, including two important decisions on health care:

QUARTERLY STATUS REPORTS ("It's deja vu all over again."): The Conference Committee voted to restore around $155 million in funding and reject the proposal to reinstate quarterly status reports for adult Medi-Cal recipients. For the moment, this saves California from joining only Nebraska and North Dakota as a state that requires such onerously frequent reporting requirements. In rejecting quarterly status reports, the Committee did vote for trailer bill language to reinsert the current requirement that Medi-Cal recipients must report changes in their income and status within 10 days.

The original QSR proposal was estimated to remove 246,000 people from Medi-Cal coverage. The vote was a party-line vote, with Assemblyman John Campbell repeatedly making the case that this was a simple anti-fraud measure that only removes ineligible people from the Medi-Cal program. (In fact, states that have looked into this have found that the majority of those who lose coverage did so due to the burden of the paperwork, rather than because their actual eligibility status had changed.) Right before this vote, Senator Steve Peace commented about the insistent comments of Campbell, who works in the automotive frachise industry, "I am glad I never bought a car from you. You are the guy in the back that you never get to see."

EXPRESS LANE ELIGIBILITY ("A nickel isn't worth a dime today."): Another positive restoration was a vote to start express lane eligibility for just the school lunch program in July 2002, rather than the previosly established delay beyond this budget year. It would be funded at $10.386 million total funds ($5.193 general fund). The budget language to be inserted reads:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department shall apply for a State Medi-Cal Plan Amendment to implement Express Lane Eligibility for National School Lunch Program Eligible Children effective July 1, 2002."

The Conference Committee explicitly crafted this budget bill language to preserve the Governor's option to veto this provision, and the Administration representatives indicated this may be likely. This is not the first health item the Administration has strongly hinted it will veto:
trauma center funding and increased periodicity for adult dental and child CHDP visits seem also endangered.

MONDAY PRESS CONFERENCES ("I want to thank you for making this day necessary"): Given the probability that no budget will be fully passed this weekend, this Monday, July 1, a coalition of organizations will host three press conferences to call on Republicans to come forward with a real budget solution. All three events will use Assemblymen John Campbell's statement that the only needs are "bread and water and shelter" as as a press hook. We will play copies of the video, and use the visual of people on a "bread line" waiting for a Republican budget solution. YOU ARE INVITED TO COME, to join the "bread line" and show your support. (If you have questions over the weekend about any of these events, Anthony can refer you to the appropriate contact. Call his cell phone at 916-870-4782.)

* In SACRAMENTO, the event is at 10:00am, on the North side of the State Capitol--the "L" street side. Groups include: Health Access, California Labor Federationn, JERICHO, Loaves and Fishes, SEIU, Gray Panthers, and many others. In Sacramento, the groups will deliver 120 pieces of bread to legislators.

* In SALINAS, the event is at 12noon, in front of Senator Bruce McPherson's District Office, at 25 San Juan Grade Road. Groups include: Coalition for a Living Wage Santa Cruz & Monterey Counties, Salinas Action Group (GAP), The Citizenship Project, The League of United Latino American Citizens (LULAC), Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), more.

* In SAN DIEGO, the event is at 12:00noon, at the State Building at 1350 Front Street.

ATTACHED is a VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ("It was impossible to get a conversation going; everybody was talking too much.") of the now-infamous dialogue in the Conference Committee about health care coverage that prompted Assemblyman Campbell's "bread and water and shelter" comment.

See an updated version of the LEGISLATIVE SCORECARD as well.

Peace,
Anthony

--
Anthony E. Wright
Director of Organizing
Health Access
1127 11th St., #234, Sacramento, CA 95814
Ph: 916-442-2308, Fx: 916-497-0921
awright@health-access.org

----------------------------
COMPETING CALIFORNIA VISIONS:
“Bread and Water and Shelter” or “Wise Investments in Health Care”

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT of the California Legislative Budget Conference Committee
From discussion on Wednesday, June 19, 2002, between 11:30am and 12:00noon

In the middle of a discussion on the Healthy Families program—which currently provides low-cost health insurance to over a half-million children—and the proposed expansion to cover many parents, as well as the federal matching money that California may lose by delaying the parent expansion, Senator Steve Peace (D-El Cajon), Chair, recognized Assemblymember John Campbell (R-Irvine) to speak.

Campbell: I was just going to say that, just because you go into a store, and if you only need one of something, and they say that if you buy two, you get two more free, doesn't mean you should necessarily should buy two when you don't need two, even though you may get two more free. So I think that logic can be applied here. Plus I don't know why—obviously, some of us of believe that this is a program which is not needed and not warranted, particularly now, for us to be spending nearly $60 million in expansions—I mean, this is a clear, clear addition and expansion, and just because we are going to have the money in California, if we are not going to use it where it should be used. I don't think that's a reason to just bring it here.

Assemblymember Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento): Mr. Campbell, I think the analogy here is a little bit faulty, in this sense: we don't need just one. Your analogy was, why would you go into a store needing to buy one thing, but taking advantage of an offer that if you buy two, you get an additional two free. The problem is we don't need one. There are 164,000 families—164,000 parents eligible for Healthy Families expansion. That's a huge need in California, and we have the ability to leverage federal dollars two to one here. Why is that not a wise investment for California to make?

Campbell: I guess the element I left out of my analogy is that your credit card is maxed.

Steinberg: But you know what? My credit card is going to be maxed plus, if we don't make wise investments up front, in health care. Those same people without health insurance—again, we heard the argument yesterday. The faulty assumption as well is that if we don't invest in health coverage for families who currently aren't covered, that somehow, we are going to get off scot-free. And we know that is just not the case. We know they are going to rely on our emergency care system, at much larger cost—and not be able to take advantage of the same two-to-one federal resources that we can take advantage of by investing that money. So either way, the credit card is maxed, plus. I just think it is a wise investment to leverage the resources where we can, and cover 164,000 people who are currently aren't covered.

Campbell: We just clearly disagree on this matter. Because I don't think the bank is going to have a lot of sympathy when you say you have to buy this thing, you have to have it. And I don't think the people of this state, upon whom you have an interest in raising taxes, are going to be interested in having you raise taxes in order to fund programs that do not exist. So that, if this thing is vital—we have lived without it up until now. So it has clearly has been not so vital that we had to have it this year or last year, or the year before.

Assemblymember Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach): Mr. Campbell, would you argue that there is no need for health care for thousands and thousands of Californians who pay taxes, who participate in our life here in California, and yet they don't deserve or need health care? If there's a legitimate need, you would argue that we not fund it?

Campbell: You know, you need—I love in this building where we throw around the term "need" all the time. You need—

Oropeza: Look, they're sick. This program—

Campbell: You need bread and water and shelter, and everything else—everything else that we do is a want.

Oropeza: Health care?

Campbell: We throw around "needs" for all kinds of things all the time, and I would merely say that you cannot in society—it has been tried—you cannot provide all of what everyone wants to everyone free of charge if they able to have it or not. You cannot do that. That has been tried, and it does not work. The question becomes where you draw the line, because the line has to be drawn somewhere, and you choose to draw it in a different place than I do, and you choose to continue to tax people, to get all kinds of services that in some cases the people you are taxing don't have themselves.

Oropeza: Well, I would just say that we as a state have recognized that there are families with children in those family units—family units with children who need health care, and we have acknowledged that as a state through the funding of Healthy Families program for children. We have made a nonsensical decision to take care of the health of the children but ignore the health of the parents. Now to me, that's an illogical thing to argue. What we are trying to do now is to make up for a past wrong, in my view, which is taking care of half of a family. And I think the position is heartless and inhumane, to say that we would not, as a state, fund the parents of children who need health care, and we'll ignore them and they can be sick, and we’ll just take care of half of the family. That is, I think, a very heartless position to take.

Campbell: Would you say that if 80% of the people had access to some kind of employer-sponsored health care, on their own? Because people who earn the income that this would go up to, people at that income level, according to a RAND study, 80% of them have access to employer-sponsored health care.

Steinberg: Oh but, the fact is that with premiums rising, you are going to find more people, more people in need of this sort of Healthy Families coverage. And let's just say that—you know, it isn't Democrats who are just, calling for this sort of expansion. As well, in the subcommittee, you had Dr. Richman supported a whole array of restoration in the health care area, and it's the Bush Administration itself that has said to California, we will match this money two-for-one if California puts up its share. And then finally, I just need to say, I think, John, you are very honest about your position, in terms of where the disagreement is. If we are going to now say that the standard is going to be bread, water and shelter, and everything else goes, we are far apart, and let's begin engaging in that debate. Because that's the real debate. If that's the line: bread, water and shelter, and everything else is cut because we don't have the willingness to even look at the revenue side, I’m ready to engage in that debate.

Peace: I would like to point out that my doctors told me to stop eating bread.

Steinberg: Wheat bread?

Campbell: All I was trying to point out is that I hear the term "need" used with virtually every bill that gets floated out in this legislature, and we use that term way too much. I mean, I need more money. Probably everyone out there needs more money, they would say, because there is something they “need” to have. So, let's just be careful of where we draw this and where we do. So what we are talking about is a number of these being people who have access to health care that merely are getting it-- that have access to it if they pay for it themselves but they are getting on the backs of taxpayers upon whom you wish to raise taxes. And you think that's fine and I think it's not. And—

Steinberg: I'd like you to prove your supposition that these people who would qualify for this federally- and state-sponsored health coverage have access to health care. That's not true.

Oropeza: It is $27,000 a year for a family of three. What job that pays $27,000 a year for a family of three offers health insurance?

Campbell: Any of my employees in my company do. Regardless of what they make. Sure. Absolutely.

Steinberg: You need to prove your basic supposition, I don't think it's true.

For more information on the actions of the Conference Committee on health care issues, or to view the videotape from which this was transcribed, please contact Health Access: Anthony Wright, Organizing Director, at 916-442-2308 or awright@health-access.org, or Beth Capell, Legislative Advocate, at 916-497-0760 or bcapell@jps.net.

Labels: Updates

posted by Kristin | Permalink | 10:19 AM


 

Reserving my right to critique coverage later...

 

From small changes to BIG changes...

 

The view from 10,000 feet.

 

A Zen Sen

 

Bush Whacking Kids

 

A San Francisco treat

 

Fireworks of a different kind...

 

Building a fence at the border for whom...

 

International House of Health Care

 

Dept. of Insurance