Budget passed today

MARTY OMOTO
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY RIGHTS PERSPECTIVES
FEBRUARY 19, 2009 – THURSDAY MORNING
To read other and previous commentaries, go to the CDCAN website at:
www.cdcan.us
EMAIL REPLY TO THIS COMMENTARY: martyomoto@rcip.com

ADVOCACY IS ABOUT LIVES THAT MATTER - NOT ABOUT A REPORT THAT IS ABOUT
CONTROLLING REGIONAL CENTER COSTS
SACRAMENTO - I am writing this sort of buzzed (and not in a good way
either) from the perspective of dealing with the ongoing seemingly
endless budget fight, so forgive me if my words that follow don't make
sense (though some people probably think that is an on-going problem for
me whenever I write or talk).

In the public forums to be held February 19th, 27th and March 2, the
Department of Developmental Services will be seeking input from the
public on how to achieve $100 million in savings - or reductions, with a
trigger of an additional 7.1% cut to regional center provider payments
beginning September 1, 2009, if the Legislature determines that there was
sufficient changes in state laws to achieve the $100 million in cuts (or
savings to the state). That 7.1% cut would go into effect if $100
million in savings will not be achieved, on top of the 3% cut in regional
center provider payments that is to go in effect February 1, 2009 (and
that leads to another question of HOW that will be accomplished
retroactively).

For those public forums, it was suggested that the a report written by
the Department of Developmental Services over a year and half ago (at the
direction of the Legislature) that outlined different ways to control
regional center costs is one basis - but not the only one - to consider
regarding ideas to achieve $100 million in savings during the 2009-2010
budget year.

Some people have viewed that particular report as if it was the agenda
for the public forums, as if that report and the list of possible cuts
in it are the only options and ideas available or possible. It is isn't
- and the budget related "trailer bill" language makes that clear.

But even if the budget language didn't make that clear, it should be
clear to us as good advocates that our advocacy demands that we bring up
and sometimes force attention and consideration of different public
policy ideas that the State may not have considered, may not want
addressed or may not want to focus on They have their job - and there
are tremendously good and decent people working in the Department of
Developmental Services. But we have our job too. And we should do our
job as advocates.

We should not as advocates allow any report or document to somehow
control our commitment to rights or limit our vision for the future or
diminishing our hopes for the people we love. That's not being
unrealistic or avoiding a hard choice - it recognizes reality and the
limited choices we often face. I know that from personal experience, as
I know so many families and people do.

Saying "no more cuts" is not the same as saying "no cuts". The latter
assumes that nothing happened before this budget year except for
spending.

As advocates we need to remind ourselves and policymakers that we
remember the year before that, and the year before that, and the year
before that, and the year before that and years going back to late 2001
(and not including the early 1990's) all were years when cuts were made
not only to developmental services- but to many other services and
programs impacting people with disabilities, mental health needs and
seniors.

Not remembering or recognizing that ignores the harsh reality of the
hundreds of millions of dollars of ongoing cuts - called "cost
containment" that have been in place that has cut funding to regional
centers, for more than a half a decade and longer.

So saying "no more cuts" is not ignoring reality - in fact it recognizes
it when perhaps the State and others do not.

One only has to look at how the State made the "hard choice" of cutting
(suspending) the state cost of living money owed to the lowest income
people with disabilities, the blind and lowest income seniors on the
federal and state funded SSI/SSP (Supplemental Security Income./State
Supplemental Payment) grants.

Since 1991, the State has cut that cost of living money owed not once,
not twice, not five times - but SIXTEEN times - and not including the
times it also suspended passing through the federal cost of living money
owed. When cut that many times, SSI/SSP is no longer a "hard choice" to
cut - it has become an "easy target".

And that program - like the regional centers, In-Home Supportive Services
and Medi-Cal have become the easy targets by some because growth in the
numbers of people who are eligible and need services - and use services
is growing faster than the general population and the current level of
revenues. Of course no one from the State has really has explained the
reasoning that the births of children with disabilities is somehow
magically restricted to the growth in the general population. Or the
growth in the numbers of seniors. Where does it say - other than for
strictly budget reasons - that there is supposed to be a link? If
anything, it should define the unmet or underserved need - not outrageous
growth as if it was the fault of the mother giving birth to a child with
autism or down syndrome.

So the response has been to somehow cut or reduce caseload and to put a
damper on use of services.

Which is why there is a proposal from the Governor seeking a $100 million
reduction - not specified how - to cut the growth in regional center
spending. On the face of it - especially given the enormous budget
deficit and bad economic times, it seems reasonable.

Yes, we can always examine - and should on an on-going basis, how to make
regional centers, providers - everyone - more efficient and effective not
only in saving money, but in saving lives too by making the difference it
is suppose to make. That is real reform and cost savings.

And here is what I suggest and hope others will suggest too:

The State should not make this cut - at least not now, when it is still
possible - and something as advocates we should fight for - in getting
funding that is coming to California from the economic stimulus bill, to
off-set the $100 million targeted cut in growth, so that people are not
harmed - and we will all have the time that all of us deserve in making
good decisions that will result in a better system, and real savings.

And here's perhaps an even more significant reason not to impose that
$100 million cut to growth or the additional provider payment cut in
September:

The shadow of a proposed amendment to the State Constitution that would,
if approved by voters in May, impose a strict and hard spending cap or
limitation on state spending tied to a ten year trend of state revenues,
and requirement for a rainy day fund that could be used for only certain
one time purposes.

That spending cap amendment will likely - at this point - be approved,
with recent polls showing 70% support. And if it wins, it would go into
effect immediately - for the 2009-2010 State budget year.

Assuming it does - and it seems likely it will at this point - that alone
will have a profound impact on regional centers - and also on other
services and supports in other programs including In-Home Supportive
Services, SSI/SSP, Medi-Cal and more. It could have a profound impact on
a person's right of choice to live in their own communities and in their
own home rather than just one choice of living in a healthy facility or
other institutional setting.

So that spending cap will - on its own, impose controls on spending and
growth in all programs. Republican Senator George Runner spoke on the
Senate Floor earlier this week while the budget was being debated, saying
that if that hard spending cap would have been in place five years ago
"we would not be in the situation of a budget shortfall right now". He
has been a strong advocate that the budget needs to cut spending - and
not raise taxes at all.

And while I don't believe everything Senator Runner has to say - it is
worthwhile for us as advocates to consider what he said regarding the
spending cap.

And so, I believe that with that likely scenario of a spending cap being
approved by voters on May 19, 2009, and it going into effect for the
2009-2010 State budget year, that it is wrong to move forward on cutting
another $100 million from the regional center budget or to impose an
additional 7.1% cut to provider payments (if that $100 million cut does
not happen).

That spending cap will profoundly control spending and growth in the
regional center system - and with that reality coming not years from now
- but months from now, it is more important that we focus how regional
centers and community based providers and families and adults with
developmental disabilities can function effectively and efficiently under
that.

That is what I think the focus of discussion needs to be.

That is not saying "no cuts". We have been cut. And we will be cut more
in ways we may not totally understand in the coming years when that
spending cap is passed and put in place, that will impact lives - the
lives that matter to us.

That is facing reality. And that is confronting the real hard choice we
face together.

Because if we always remember that every life matters, than we will
remember that we are talking about lives, about values and about rights -
and not just about savings and a budget line item.
MARTY OMOTO COMMENTARY AND ACTION ALERTS
This is a periodic personal commentary and ACTION ALERTS by Marty Omoto,
director/advocate of the California Disability Community Action Network
(CDCAN). These commentaries represent the personal opinion of Marty Omoto
only - and does not necessarily represent the viewpoints or opinions of
anyone else. These commentaries are separate from the CDCAN Reports,
which strive to be objective in getting information out to people with
disabilities, mental health needs, seniors, their families, workers and
others.

Address inquires to Marty Omoto, CDCAN at 1225 8th Street, Suite 480,
Sacramento, CA 985814 916/446-0013 or email martyomoto@rcip.com Website:
http://www.cdcan.us to get the free non-partisan CDCAN Disability News
Reports and to view archived copies. Omoto's sister Alana had
developmental and other disabilities.

Since 2000, CDCAN Reports and commentaries go out to over 45,000 people
with disabilities, seniors, families, Asian and Pacific Islanders
disability groups, other minority advocacy groups, organizations,
policymakers, media and others across California. It is okay to forward
this - just provide attribution.

PLEASE HELP CDCAN CONTINUE ITS WORK!!!
Townhall Telemeetings, reports and alerts and other activities cannot
continue without your help!
CDCAN Disability Rights News Reports, Telemeetings & other Events
Please send your contribution/donation (make payable to "CDCAN" or
"California Disability Community Action Network):

CDCAN
1225 8th Street Suite 480
Sacramento, CA 95814
Note: the paypal option on the CDCAN website is working

These Budget Cuts Affect All of Us

February 13, 2009
Sketchy Budget Details Slowly Emerge
The following summary is based on the best available, but very limited,
information on the components
of the budget framework that will be voted on by the Legislature. Much of
this material comes from a
document dated February 9; the details may have changed over the past four
days. As of mid-day Friday,
February 13, votes on a spending plan and related legislation are scheduled
for Saturday in both the
Senate and the Assembly. No documents have been made available to the
public; however, documents
identifying major proposed spending reductions and tax increases have
circulated through Capitol
circles.
The proposed budget framework identifies a total of $41.0 billion in “
solutions” – $26.3 billion to
balance the 2009-10 budget and $14.8 billion to close the gap projected for
the remainder of 2008-09.
The proposed framework includes $14.1 billion in spending reductions, $12.8
billion in new and
increased taxes, and $11.5 billion in new borrowing and various accounting
gimmicks. Additional cuts
totaling $947.7 million and an additional tax increase of $1.6 billion would
be triggered if California
does not receive a specified level of federal funding from the economic
recovery plan pending in
Congress.
Budget documents assume the state will receive $5.0 billion from the sale of
bonds backed by lottery
proceeds in 2009-10. The budget framework assumes voters will approve
changes in the allocation of
lottery proceeds in a measure that would appear in a special election. The
proposed framework also
assumes that the state will raise $6.1 billion from the sale of Revenue
Anticipation Warrants. Finally,
the framework assumes $432.6 million in internal borrowing from several
special funds.
Proposed Cap Could Severely Limit Future Spending
The budget framework includes a new limit on state spending. While details
of the proposed cap have
not been made available to the public, it appears that the cap would limit
the annual growth in state
spending to the average of revenue growth over the prior 10 years. In
essence, this formula would tie
future years’ spending to a level established during what is perhaps the
worst budget crisis in the
state’s history. A preliminary CBP analysis estimates that state General
Fund spending could be limited
to approximately $21 billion below the Governor’s baseline spending level in
2012-13 – a level that
assumes all of the cuts proposed by the Governor as part of the plan he
released on New Year’s Eve to
balance the 2008-09 and 2009-10 budgets. In other words, some $21 billion in
cuts above and beyond
those currently under consideration could be required under the proposed cap.
2
Tax Cuts Will Worsen Future Budget Gaps
The budget framework includes three significant tax breaks that together
will reduce future revenues by at least $1
billion per year and potentially significantly more. The first of the
proposed changes would give corporations the
option to choose between two different formulas for determining how much of
their income would be subject to tax
in California. Press reports suggest that this would cost $700 million or
more per year in lost revenues. The second
would create a two-year hiring credit for businesses. Past history suggests
that such credits do not lead to new
employment and that they are subject to considerable abuse. A similar
proposal was dropped from the federal
economic recovery plan in response to concerns over cost and lack of
effectiveness. The third proposal provides $100
million per year for five years for a new tax credit for movie and
television production.
Budget Agreement Would Include Up to $14.4 Billion in New Tax Revenues
The proposed budget agreement would raise up to $14.4 billion in new tax
revenues. These tax provisions would be
in effect for four or five years – reports vary – if voters approve a
proposed limit on state spending, which the
Legislature would put on the ballot as part of the budget package. If voters
reject the cap, the new taxes would be in
effect for two years. Specifically, the proposed agreement:
 Increases the state sales tax rate by 1 percentage point, raising an
estimated $1.203 billion in 2008-09 and
$4.553 billion in 2009-10.
 Increases the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) rate from 0.65 percent to 1.15
percent, raising $202.9 million in 2008-09
and $1.715 billion in 2009-10. A portion of the increased revenues from this
provision would be used to fund
local law enforcement programs.
 Imposes a surtax equal to 2.5 percent of personal income tax liability,
raising an estimated $1.627 billion in
2009-10.
 Reduces the size of the dependent credit claimed by personal income
taxpayers, raising an estimated $1.440
billion in 2009-10.
 Increases the gasoline tax by 12 cents per gallon, raising $250 million in
2008-09 and $1.812 billion in 2009-10.
Budget Documents Identify Up to $15.1 Billion in Spending Cuts
The limited available documentation on the proposed budget agreement
identifies the following major spending
proposals:
 $8.6 billion in cuts to programs covered by the Proposition 98 guarantee –
$5.6 billion in 2008-09 and $3.0 billion
in 2009-10.
 $710.8 million in additional savings attributable to funding the
Proposition 98 guarantee at the minimum level
required in 2008-09 and 2009-10.
 A redirection of state First 5 Commission balances, as well as 50 percent
of additional First 5 state and county
funds, to support children’s programs for state savings of $608.0 million in
2009-10. This fund shift would remain
in effect through 2013-14 and would require voter approval.
 Diversion of funds raised by Proposition 63 of 2004 to support Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and
Treatment (EPSDT) programs for state savings of $226.7 million in 2009-10.
Available budget documents suggest
that this fund shift, which would require voter approval, would remain in
effect through 2010-11.
 Avoidance of the pass through – beginning in an as-yet-unspecified month –
of the 2009 federal SSI COLA in the
SSI/SSP Program for state savings of $79.8 million in 2008-09 and $487.3
million in 2009-10. Available budget
documents are not clear whether these savings assume not passing through the
2010 federal SSI COLA as well.
3
The proposed budget framework also would suspend the June 2010 state COLA in
the SSI/SSP Program for onemonth
savings of $27.0 million in 2009-10 and annual savings of more than $300
million beginning in 2010-11.
 Suspension of the July 2009 COLA for CalWORKs grants for savings of $79.1
million in 2009-10 and suspension
of funding for the Pay for Performance Program for additional savings of
$40.0 million in 2009-10. This program
was intended to provide additional funding to counties that achieve certain
CalWORKs outcomes; however,
funds have not been provided since the program was created in 2005-06.
 A cut of funding for Regional Center service provider payments and
operations of 3 percent for savings of $24.6
million in 2008-09 and $60.2 million in 2009-10 and a further reduction of
7.1 percent in service provider
payments for additional savings of $100.0 million in 2009-10.
 Suspension of the July 2009 COLA for county operation of the Medi-Cal
Program for savings of $24.7 million in
2009-10.
 Delay of a child-support automation project for savings of $36.1 million
in 2009-10.
 Reductions in support for the University of California, California State
University, and Hastings College of Law
totaling $264.4 million – $132.2 million in 2008-09 and $132.2 million in
2009-10.
 A reduction of $427.6 million in 2009-10 relative to the level of support
for UC and CSU outlined in the Higher
Education Compact.
 A $95.7 million reduction in funding for higher education retirement
contributions in 2009-10.
 A $375.8 million reduction in state employee compensation costs in 2008-09
and $1.024 billion in 2009-10.
 A $6.5 million 2008-09 reduction and a $32.0 million 2009-10 reduction in
funding for property tax assistance for
seniors and blind or disabled Californians available through the Senior
Citizens’ Property Tax Deferral Program.
 Continuation of “one-time” reductions and fund shifts for the judicial
branch for savings of $109.3 million in
2009-10.
 Elimination of cost-of-living adjustments for trial courts and the state
judiciary for savings of $36.7 million in
2009-10.
 Elimination of the price increase for state agencies per the current
projection of 0.4 percent inflation for savings
of $136.0 million in 2009-10.
 A 10 percent reduction in support for the federal-court-appointed receiver’
s inmate medical services budget for
savings of $180.8 million in 2009-10.
 A delay in the implementation of the Guardianship and Conservatorship
Reform Act of 2006 for savings of $17.4
million in 2009-10.
 A redirection of tribal gaming revenues from transportation to the General
Fund for savings of $100.8 million in
each of 2008-09 and 2009-10.
 A suspension of state funding for local transit agencies for five years
for savings of $153.2 million in 2008-09
and $306.4 million in 2009-10.
Additional Cuts and an Additional Tax Increase Would Be Triggered if
California’s Share of Federal Economic Recovery
Funding Does Not Meet a Certain Threshold
Additional cuts totaling $947.7 million and an additional tax increase of
$1.6 billion would be triggered if California
does not receive a specified level of federal funding from the economic
recovery plan pending in Congress. If federal
funding does not meet the threshold, the proposed budget framework would
require the state to:
 Impose an additional 2.5 percent personal income tax surtax. This surtax
would be in addition to the one
included in the proposed package. The additional tax would raise $1.6
billion in 2009-10.
 Reduce SSI/SSP grants by 2.3 percent for a cut of $267.8 million.
Individual recipients would lose $20 per month
and couples would lose $35 per month.
4
 Eliminate certain Medi-Cal optional benefits and reduce reimbursement
rates for public hospitals by 10 percent
for savings of $183.6 million.
 Reduce CalWORKs grants by 4 percent for a cut of $146.9 million.
 Cap the state’s contribution toward the wages of In-Home Supportive
Services (IHSS) workers at $9.50 per hour
plus $0.60 for benefits and require some IHSS recipients to pay a larger
share of the cost of the services they
receive for combined savings of $78.0 million.
 Reduce funding for the University of California and the California State
University system by an additional $100
million.
 Cut judicial branch funding by $100 million and reject a proposal to
create new judgeships for additional savings
of $71.4 million.

Understanding these times

These times are really hard. When you have to comprehend a 3% reduction in your profits for your business, and at the same time lose your health insurance plan, well....you begin to understand what really hard times means. It means we either have to roll with the punches or all of us (that means everyone!) take a stand one way or another. What I mean by this is do we take the status quo, where all the systems around us fail, and we are left without a penny in our pocket, or a job that will make us successful, or do we come together as a society and hold our representatives accountable for everything that they have promised us. We are supposed to be California...the defining icon of the west coast, but we as a society are complacent. I recently saw an old aquainence who was complaining about all the cuts and the proposed budget cuts. I knew in my head that he was feeling the hard times too, but then he wouldn't really do anything. He wouldnt go the extra mile and take a stand. We need to chain ourselves in front of the capital and say that minorities may not be ignored and that the budget cuts will not fall on our shouldrers. If someone calls me tomorrow and says, "Nick, Im ready to go down to Sacramento and get arrested for protecting our rights" I will be on the next train to Sac. For those of you who read this, and for those of you who don't, this is the worst time in the states history. This is the longest we've ever gone without passing a budget. It's not just happening at a local level, our friend Tom Dashal, who has always stood up for PWD and minorities, he was ousted from the Obama Administration by the good-o-IRS. 120,000 to 3,000 is nothing to a person who makes so much money. This was a publicity blitz that made the Republicans use their influence with the popular media to overplay something that was just a mere mistake. It could have happened to any one of us. So I ask you to engage with me on a trip to the capital to regain our rights. Yes, you can email me at daretodream94704@yahoo.com and I will happily join you in our fight to save our state from people really dying, and people going broke, because our government doesn't have a clue. Staying alive....

Nick