Damage Already Done by California’s 2009 Healthcuts

As California’s Governor Schwarzenegger proposes a 2010-2011 budget with more disastrous health and human service cuts , Health Access looks at the effects of the 2009-2010 cuts.

Health Acess, January 7, 2010

The Damage Already Done

Executive Summary

Six months after major health care cuts were made to the 2009-2010 budget, and despite major efforts to prevent or delay the impacts, the ramifications are rippling through California’s families, economy, and the health system on which we all rely.

Since the Governor signed the budget in July 2009 slashing $2 billion from the health care system, some cuts have been partially averted through various actions. The delay and uncertainty, however, has created serious problems, and combined with the cases where the cuts were actually made, there have been very real human hardships and economic impacts for Californians. Some of these impacts include:

• Almost three million low-income adults have lost ten important benefits, such as dental care, vision care, speech therapy, and psychological services – in the last six months, over 450,000 Californians in poverty have either had to forego or pay for dental care and another 240,000 have lost coverage for prescriptions eyeglasses; (See demonstration against these cuts)

• About 93,000 children waited uninsured for Healthy Families coverage until the cut was averted by non-government donations and higher cost sharing for 269,000 children on the program;

• At least five community clinics in the state have already been forced to shut down and hundreds of workers have been laid off, plus another 10 clinics are on the brink of closure;

• Thousands of HIV/AIDS patients have been denied access to needed services and affordable medications they rely on;

• About 300,000 low-income women no longer have access to life-saving breast cancer screenings;

• Over 300,000 school children have missed an educational opportunity to learn proper dental care and positive life-long oral habits;

• Programs focusing on prevention and prenatal care have been forced to significantly scale back or are closing altogether; and

• Six domestic violence shelters were temporarily closed while the Legislature passed a bill to find ways to keep shelters open, and even afterwards, most have been forced to reduce services;

With only six months into the budget year, it is too soon to present statewide comprehensive data about the full scope of the damage of the cuts. However, based on a review of available records and interviews with providers, program directors, health care advocates, and patients throughout the state, this report is a first step in quantifying the damage of the decisions made to cut the health care budget in the 2009-10 fiscal year.

These budget cuts were choices that could have been averted if California policymakers decided to prioritize differently and, for example, raise revenues and/or taxes as an alternative to making such drastic cuts. As California policymakers begin to debate additional cuts in 2010, this report shows the damage already done by making certain choices about the budget.

Read the entire report (PDF)

shortlink to this posting: http://wp.me/p3xLR-lt

Schwarzenegger threatens to eliminate IHSS if he’s not given complete freedom to slash programs

“The Governor in his letter specifically cited recent federal court decisions that has blocked the State from implementing budget reductions impacting the State’s contribution (participation) toward IHSS worker wages; blocked a 10% reduction in reimbursements to foster family agency providers, blocked a 10% and 5% reduction for most Medi-Cal providers; stopped a reduction in the number of days Adult Health Care Centers could provide services; stopped major reduction in elgibility and services  based on a little known assessment tool (called the functional index scores and rankings) that would have eliminated or reduced services to over 130,000 children and adults in the IHSS program. The federal courts have said those reductions that the State wanted to make in order to close a budget gap of over $60 billion, violated federal law. “

San Francisco and Sacramento Gray Panthers were among the plaintiffs in the successful suits against reductions to Medi-Cal providers.  Schwarzenegger has refused to consider single-payer healthcare, which could eliminate billions of state healthcare expenses.  He has also refused any serious attempts to raise revenue from corporations or rich Californians who could afford to pay the revenue the state needs to provide needed services in health, welfare, education, housing,  and many other vital services.

CDCAN Report, #326-2009, December 22, 2009

State Budget Crisis:

GOVERNOR SAYS STATE IS “NOW FACED WITH A DECISION TO ELIMINATE ENTIRE IHSS PROGRAM”

SENDS LETTER URGING CONGRESS NOT TO IMPOSE NEW UNFUNDED MEDICAID REQUIREMENTS IN HEALTH CARE REFORM – URGES MORE “FLEXIBILITY” FOR STATES – GOVERNOR’S LETTER SIGNAL THAT HIS PROPOSED BUDGET IN JANUARY WILL INCLUDE MASSIVE SPENDING REDUCTIONS IMPACTING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, SENIORS, MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS, WORKERS & PROVIDERS

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 12/22/09 07:50 PM  (Pacific Time)]  – Citing an increasing heavy burden of costs imposed on the states at a time when most are experiencing enormous budget shortfalls, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger early this evening released a letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Democrat – San Francisco) urging that Congress not impose increased Medicaid program costs on states through new unfunded federal requirements (mandates) and allow states the flexibility to reduce reimbursement rates and benefits to recipients, in the pending health care reform bills.  The Governor said in his letter that the latest health care reform bills would increase California’s unfunded mandate costs through new Medicaid and other health requirements by over $3 billion, adding to the state’s budget woes.

But the Governor also mentioned in his letter what will likely be an politically explosive proposals of the possible elimination of the entire In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program that provides in-home supports and services to over 462,000 children and adults with disabilities (including developmental), mental health needs, the blind, persons with traumatic brain and other injuries, low income seniors.

The Governor, in his letter that also went to all members of California’s congressional delegation, said that the combination of recent court decisions blocking many of the state budget cuts to Medicaid funded services including and lack of “flexibility” in current federal Medicaid rules to allow the states to reduce services or provider reimbursement rates when necessary, will mean that “California is now faced with a decision to eliminate the entire IHSS program”

The Governor did not firmly say that the proposed elimination of the entire IHSS program would be in his proposed 2010-2011 State Budget, expected to be releasd January 8, 2010 – but today’s letter was the strongest indication that it would be.

Any such proposal however would require approval by both the Assembly and State Senate – and advocates and advocacy organizations, representing disability, mental health, the blind, low income seniors, IHSS workers are certain to  raise major protests to have such a proposal rejected immediately.

Both houses of the Legislature are in recess and are not scheduled to return to the State Capitol to begin the 2010 legislative session until Monday, January 4.

Governor Says Health Reform Bill Must Give States “Flexibility”

The Governor, in his letter to Pelosi, wrote that  “…For health care reform to succeed, Congress must first and foremost give states the flexibility to meet our current obligations within the revenues available to states…Congress must either let states reduce their costs to live within limited resources or treat states equally by fully funding all Medicaid populations above a certain eligibility level…”

The Governor said in his letter that “Congress has a chance to make history with this legislation,” but that  “the current structure and the proposed expansion of Medicaid under health care reform are unsustainable for California. Governors in every part of the country have raised similar concerns. “

He said that “California stands ready to help achieve successful health care reform, and I look forward to continuing to work with you as the final comprehensive bill is negotiated in Congress”.

Congress is expected to take final action on a reform package sometime early next year – but the Governor stressed in his letter to Speaker Pelosi that the reform effort “…will only succeed if Congress gives states, like California, the flexibility to meet current obligations within the revenues available to states.”

Governor Says Court Decisions and Federal Rules Hampering Efforts To Control Costs

The Governor in his letter specifically cited recent federal court decisions that has blocked the State from implementing budget reductions impacting the State’s contribution (participation) toward IHSS worker wages; blocked a 10% reduction in reimbursements to foster family agency providers, blocked a 10% and 5% reduction for most Medi-Cal providers; stopped a reduction in the number of days Adult Health Care Centers could provide services; stopped major reduction in elgibility and services  based on a little known assessment tool (called the functional index scores and rankings) that would have eliminated or reduced services to over 130,000 children and adults in the IHSS program.

The federal courts have said those reductions that the State wanted to make in order to close a budget gap of over $60 billion, violated federal law.

The Governor said those lawsuits, and also what he termed lack of “flexibility” in federal Medicaid laws that make it difficult for the states to make changes or reductions in services and eligibility and provider reimbursements will have serious consequences on the state’s Medi-Cal program and related services in the coming year.

The Governor in his letter wrote that “Ironically, while federal courts have ruled that California cannot reduce provider rates for optional benefits such as dental services or IHSS, they have ruled that completely eliminating those same optional benefits is perfectly legal. Adult dental was eliminated as part of our effort to close a $62 billion budget gap earlier this year.”

The Governor noted that “If states had more flexibility to reduce rates and benefits under Medicaid rules, we might have been able to save a portion of that program. Similarly, we reduced services to specified populations in our In-Home Supportive Services program, but federal court decisions have prevented those reductions from occurring.” and warned that “ California is now faced with a decision to eliminate the entire IHSS program.”

FULL TEXT OF GOVERNOR’S LETTER TO CONGRESS

December 22, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker,

As one of the few governors in the nation who attempted to pass comprehensive health care reform at the state level, I have great appreciation for the historic effort you are leading in Congress.  In fact, I am one of the only Republican elected officials in the country to publicly support the President’s health care reform efforts.

When asked for my support, I was assured that federal legislation would not increase costs to California or include new unfunded mandates. Unfortunately, under nearly every scenario we can predict, the federal health care reform legislation being debated would cost California’s General Fund an additional $3 billion to $4 billion annually. This crushing new burden will be added to a safety net that is already shredding under billions of dollars in unfunded federal mandates that we are struggling to meet. Medicaid is a partnership program between the federal government and the states. As the partner responsible for implementing this program, I am telling you that our Medicaid program is already at the breaking point, and if federal health care reform is passed without addressing the underlying faults in the system, health care reform will fail.

Let me be clear: I continue to support federal health care reform and believe that the current reform efforts could provide a historic achievement that will benefit all Americans. However, if Congress fails to address the existing unfunded mandates and adds yet another layer, federal health care reform could collapse the very safety net system it seeks to expand.

For health care reform to succeed, Congress must first and foremost give states the flexibility to meet our current obligations within the revenues available to states.

Giving California Flexibility to Manage Its Current Medicaid Budget

Under federal rules, California is locked into eligibility standards and benefit levels that are far more expansive and costly than other states’. For instance, Texas’s Medicaid program covers parents with incomes up to 27 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL); Pennsylvania covers those earning up to 34 percent of FPL and Florida up to 53 percent. California has expanded coverage over the years and now covers parents with incomes up to 106 percent of FPL. Federal rules for accepting American Reinvestment and Renewal Act funding prevent California from rolling back eligibility to 70 percent of the FPL to adjust our budget for lower revenues during the recession. Reducing eligibility to 70 percent of FPL in California would save more than $500 million General Fund dollars and would still cover more people than many other states.

Federal rules actually punish California twice for expanding our safety net. First, maintenance of effort rules prevent us from targeting limited resources toward the neediest populations as described above. Second, under health care reform, the federal government will shoulder almost the entire cost for states like Texas to expand their coverage from 27 percent of FPL up to whatever the federal mandated coverage level is, while California must continue to pay half the cost for populations below 106 percent. Thus, states that made little or no effort to expand coverage to low-income families are rewarded with either 82 percent or 91 percent federal funding, and states that did expand coverage, like California, are punished with costs that other states never incurred. Congress must either let states reduce their costs to live within limited resources or treat states equally by fully funding all Medicaid populations above a certain eligibility level.

Federal Medicaid rules also restrict California’s ability to modify its program to reduce costs by reducing provider rates, establishing utilization controls on benefits and requiring greater financial participation by Medicaid recipients. Once again, California has over the years expanded services beyond those offered by other states including In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), adult day health care, adult dental, pharmacy, hospice, family planning, medical supplies and so on.  Over the past two years, California has reduced spending in virtually every program area, and, in more than a dozen lawsuits filed in federal court, judges have enjoined nearly every effort to reduce rates, modify optional benefits or limit eligibility. In these lawsuits, federal judges cite Medicaid rules requiring studies on the impact of those reductions on the communities served. The cumulative impact of these federal lawsuits contributes more than $1.4 billion toward our current year deficit alone.  Should the state fail to ultimately win these legal challenges, the impact on future budgets will be in the billions. Congress must authorize states to reduce costs by lowering provider rates, limiting benefits and increasing co-pays as needed to live within limited resources.

Treat States Equally in Medicaid Reimbursement Rates

The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), the formula that determines federal reimbursement rates for states in the Medicaid program, is flawed and forces California to subsidize the Medicaid costs of other states. The current formula relies on per capita income over other indices, particularly poverty rates. California’s relatively small number of high wage earners distorts our per capita income, masking the large number of low-income individuals we cover in Medicaid.  This flawed formula results in California receiving the lowest possible Medicaid reimbursement rate in the country.  In a 2003 U.S. Government Accountability Office report titled “Differences in Funding Ability among States Often are Widened,” California was specifically called out as one of three states in the nation with one of the largest populations in poverty, while ranking 49th in per-capita costs (the second leanest Medicaid program in the U.S.). Other large states have much higher reimbursement rates: Florida receives 56.83 percent; Michigan 58.10 percent; Ohio 60.79 percent; Pennsylvania 54.08 percent; Texas 60.53 percent. The bottom line is that this flawed FMAP formula is forcing California to subsidize Medicaid costs in other states. If California received an FMAP rate equal to the average of the 10 largest states, it would be 57 percent – a difference of $2.2 billion.

Fixing the flawed FMAP rate is even more urgent in the context of national health reform. If this flawed methodology is locked into the federal health reform bill, it will be impossible for California to meet the mandatory Medicaid expansion anticipated in either the House or Senate legislation.

Enhanced Federal Matching Rates for Providers Must Extend Beyond Primary Care

Both federal health reform proposals require states to expand Medicaid to new populations. For California, that means adding almost two million people to the program.  California will need to increase provider rates significantly in order to attract and retain providers willing to serve Medi-Cal patients.

This is not a theoretical problem. In 1990, a federal district court held that California’s Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for certain services were so low that they violated the equal access provision of the Medicaid Act, which requires states to set reimbursement rates at a level sufficient to enlist enough providers so that services are available equally to recipients and to the insured general population.  California lost its appeals in that case, and the judge ordered the state’s Department of Health Services to raise the rate to 80 percent of average billing. This decision dramatically affected dental rates and increased California’s dental expenditures from $167 million in 1990 to more than $800 million in 1995 – more than a four-fold increase. In large part due to California’s lower-than-average FMAP rate, our state has been forced to reduce other provider rates even further to balance our budget.

Ironically, while federal courts have ruled that California cannot reduce provider rates for optional benefits such as dental services or IHSS, they have ruled that completely eliminating those same optional benefits is perfectly legal. Adult dental was eliminated as part of our effort to close a $62 billion budget gap earlier this year. If states had more flexibility to reduce rates and benefits under Medicaid rules, we might have been able to save a portion of that program. Similarly, we reduced services to specified populations in our In-Home Supportive Services program, but federal court decisions have prevented those reductions from occurring. California is now faced with a decision to eliminate the entire IHSS program.

While some argue that California’s low provider rates are self-inflicted, the fact is that if California was not subsidizing other states through a notoriously flawed FMAP rate at a loss of more than $2.2 billion, we would have the resources to increase our Medi-Cal rates to more reasonable levels.

The House version of federal health reform does provide enhanced federal funding match for Medicaid provider rate, but it must be expanded to all provider groups providing outpatient services, not just primary care.  Without addressing the flawed FMAP rate or adequately funding an increase in provider rates, the mandated expansion of Medicaid coverage becomes an empty promise to millions of individuals as well as an unfunded mandate for California of more than $3 billion.

Paying California Funds it is Owed

Before adding new responsibilities on states to expand Medicaid coverage, the federal government should reimburse the amount that it owes states for past errors with other safety net programs. For example, California has paid for individuals in Medi-Cal while they awaited their Medicare disability determination. This error by the Social Security Administration was acknowledged in 2001. States have never been paid back. The amount owed to California on this issue alone is nearly $700 million.

Comprehensive health care reform is essential and long overdue.  As I wrote in October, I believe that the elements of successful reform have been proposed in one form or another by Congress, but additional work is required to ensure the reform package contains the necessary balance to ensure success.  Congress has a chance to make history with this legislation.  The current structure and the proposed expansion of Medicaid under health care reform are unsustainable for California. Governors in every part of the country have raised similar concerns.  California stands ready to help achieve successful health care reform, and I look forward to continuing to work with you as the final comprehensive bill is negotiated in Congress.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

/cc:   Members of the California Congressional Delegation

shortlink to this post: http://wp.me/p3xLR-kA

Appeals Court accuses California State lawyers of deception to ram through Medi-Cal cuts.

San Francisco and Sacramento Gray Panthers are plaintiffs in this suit against the State of California for cutting its payments to Medi-Cal doctors, dentists, pharmacists, clinics, and adult day health centers, even though California’s payments to these providers and the ratio of providers to patients are among the lowest in the country.  It is already difficult for Medi-Cal patients to find doctors, yet the California was willing to go to the US Supreme Court to cut its payments by 10% and make the situation even worse.  Now the State has been caught in deceptive practices in the courtroom.  Read more about this case from CDCAN, the California Disability Community Action Network, and here.

San Francisco Chronicle, December 22, 2009

Court accuses state lawyers of lying

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

(12-21) 17:58 PST SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court bluntly accused the Schwarzenegger administration and state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office on Monday of lying about its defense of cuts in Medi-Cal fees.

Lawyers in Brown’s office committed a “clear violation” of State Bar rules that prohibit attorneys from misleading judges, raising doubts about the credibility of any future statements they make on behalf of state health officials, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The court said health officials, through their lawyers, had lied about why the state waited more than a year to make its current arguments in the case.

Brown’s office said the court’s comments were “based on a misunderstanding” that the state’s lawyers will try to clear up in the next few days.

In July, the court ruled that the state had violated federal law with 2008 legislation that cut by 10 percent the rates it paid to doctors, dentists, pharmacists, clinics and adult day health care centers serving 7.1 million poor people in the Medi-Cal program.

The ruling required the state to reimburse health care providers hundreds of millions of dollars that the state cut from their fees from July 2008 to March 2009, when a new law took effect setting rates at 1 to 5 percent below July 2008 levels.

The court said state health officials and legislators were simply trying to save money and did not study how the cuts would affect Medi-Cal patients, as federal law requires.

On Monday, the same three-judge panel rejected the state’s claim that the court lacked authority to prohibit the 10 percent rate cuts in July because the law requiring those cuts had expired March 1. The court said it still could order reimbursement, which the state has yet to pay.

The allegations of lying involved the state’s failure to cite the change in reimbursement rates in arguments before the appeals court issued its July ruling. The court noted that the modified reductions were approved in September 2008 and took effect in March, but the state did not mention that fact, or argue that it was important, until its recent appeal that sought to set the July decision aside.

State officials explained that their lawyers became aware of the legal issue only recently while preparing a potential U.S. Supreme Court appeal, the court said Monday.

In fact, the panel said, the state had already filed Supreme Court papers June 1, in an earlier Medi-Cal case, that discussed the latest change in rates and how it affected the appeals court’s jurisdiction over the issue.

Health officials “feigned ignorance” of the facts they had already presented to the Supreme Court, the appeals court said. Citing State Bar rules that forbid attorneys to mislead judges by making false statements, the court said state lawyers’ “clear violation … gives us pause about accepting the veracity of future pleadings filed by the attorney general on behalf of the (state health) director, if not more generally.”

In response, Brown’s office said it had not tried to hide the March rate change, which was well known to all sides in the case. Instead, the attorney general said, the state focused only recently on an argument that the change deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case.

The argument was made “entirely in good faith,” the attorney general’s office said in a statement. The office promised a filing in the next few days that would clear up the confusion.

But a lawyer for plaintiffs in the case said the court was on the mark.

Brown’s Los Angeles office, which handled the appeal, “has consistently lied and misrepresented statements of fact and law throughout the litigation,” said Lynn Carman, attorney for a group of pharmacists. “It is gratifying that the Ninth Circuit has now called a spade a spade.”

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/22/BAI51B7O6V.DTL

This article appeared on page C – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

shortlink to this post: http://wp.me/p3xLR-jP

Social Security Agency To Investigate If California Is Illegally Denying Social Security Disability and SSI Claims

California Disability Action Community Network,  November 23, 2009

Social Security Agency To Investigate If California Is
Illegally Denying Social Security Disability and SSI Claims

Social Security Commissioner Says Furloughs of Federally Funded State Employees In Dept. of Social Services Who Help In Determining Eligibility May Be Cause of Possible Violations of Federal Social Security Laws – Investigation Comes After Charges Made by San Diego Congressman Who Charged That  Denials of Claims Are Coming At “Expense of Those In Greatest Need”

SACRAMENTO, CALIF (CDCAN) [Updated 11/23/09  07:20 AM  (Pacific Time)  -  The US Social Security Administration will investigate allegations by Rep. Robert Filner (Democrat - San Diego) made before the US House Way and Means Subcommittee on Social Security on November 19th that California is improperly denying social security and SSI (supplemental security income) program claims as a means to get around delays caused by mandatory furloughs of state workers in the Disability Determination Service division within the Department of Social Services, who play a critical role in determining eligibility for those two programs.  The investigation will also look at similar policies and problems in Hawaii which has instituted similar mandatory furloughs of its state employees.

There was no official statement by the Schwarzenegger Administration reacting to the Social Security Administration's investigation.

As a budget cutting measure, earlier this year Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered mandatory furloughs of all state departments and agencies - including the Department of Social Services, which are closed on the first, second, and third Friday of each month until June 30, 2010.  The Department of Social Services' Community Care Licensing Division and the Disability Determination Service Division offices will remain open and operate on "self-directed furloughs".

Commissioner Michael J. Astrue who heads the federal agency, said on Friday (November 20) that in a memo to Patrick P. O'Carroll, Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, ordered the investigation writing that:

...Governor Schwarzenegger has insisted on furloughing California Disability Determination Service...employees, despite the fact that we fully fund both their salaries and overhead.  According to Congressman Robert Filner, the State is attempting to find ways to improperly circumvent the effects of the furlough at the expense of some of the State residents who are in the greatest need.

The action by the Social Security Administration, which has no immediate impact on the state, does add yet more uncertainty about various state budget reductions, with California facing yet another huge budget shortfall - now estimated to be $21 billion by the end of the 2009-2010 State budget year (June 30, 2010).  Advocates and policymakers alike expect more major spending cuts to be proposed in the coming months to close the growing shortfall.

Congressman Filner Makes Charges of Improper Denial of Claims

Congressman Filner testified last Thursday that the California's Disability Determination Service (known as "DDS" - same initials as the "Department of Developmental Services" which is a completely different state agency)  is denying the claims of disability applicants who fail to return a 25 page report within 20 days - a practice which has been adopted since the mandatory state furloughs were implemented earlier this year, reporting the following:

• One California Disability Determination Service field office, Filner claimed, had closed 30% of its cases due to an individual's failure to return the completed application form within 20 days.
• In addition, Filner said he believed that California Disability Determination Services (under the California Department of Social Services) may be manipulating its service numbers by assigning claims to fictional examiners or supervisors, which Filner says would allow the state to hide the fact that these cases are not actually being reviewed.

Commissioner Is Bush Appointee - Reports Directly to President Obama

Commissioner Astrue, appointed by President Bush on September 14, 2006 and confirmed by the US Senate on February 2, 2007, was sworn into office on February 12, 2007 for a 6 year term that expires January 19, 2013.

The commissioner, who oversees the independent federal agency with over 60,000 federal employees and 1,500 offices across the nation,  reports directly to President Obama.  The headquarters is in Baltimore, Maryland.

Impact on People With Disabilities, the Blind & Seniors

The issue has actual and potential impact on thousands of children and adults with disabilities, mental health needs and seniors, among others, who are applying for federal social security disability benefits or federally funded SSI grants.  In California the SSI recipients also include an additional state funded "SSP"  (Supplemental Security Payments) grants.

Any delays or outright denial of claims - especially those dealing with SSI/SSP - could have a ripple effect also on a person's immediate accessible and affordable housing, transportation and medical and other support needs.

The Department of Social Services estimated in May the SSI/SSP caseload by June 30, 2010, will total 1,290,473 persons:

• 376,163 who are seniors or 30% of the projected caseload
• 20,225 persons who are blind (or 2% of the projected caseload)
• 894,085 who are children and adults with disabilities (or 68% of the projected caseload)

Background of Disability Determination Service

• The federal Disability Insurance program, established under Title II of the federal Social Security Act, provides benefits to wage earners and their families in the event the wage earner becomes disabled.
• The Supplemental Security Income program, established under Title XVI of the federal Social Security Act, provides benefits to financially needy individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled.
• The federal Social Security Administration (SSA) is responsible for implementing policies of handling and determining eligibility of disability claims under the Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs.
• Persons apply for either social security disability or SSI at any Social Security office. If the person applying meets the non-medical criteria, their application would then be sent to the state's Disability Determination Service, who will then obtain the applicant's medical and other related records to determine severity of the disability or impairments and the impact on the ability to engage in work.
• In each of the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), eligibility - or determinations under both Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income are performed by its own "Disability Determination Service" (known as "DDS" - same initials used for the Department of Developmental Services, which is a different state agency entirely, though the same person could have gone through Disability Determination Service for SSI eligibility - and then to the Department of Developmental Services for supports and services) in each state. In California, the Disability Determination Service is a division under the Department of Social Services. It has 11 branch field offices, including 3 in Los Angeles County.
• The federal Social Security Administration reimburses state Disability Determination Services for 100% of allowable expenditures up to its approved funding authorization.

Social Security Administration Previously Raised Concerns of State Furlough Impact on Social Security Disability and SSI Claims

In a related action by the Social Security Administration dealing with the impact of California's furloughs, on October 16th, the US Department of Justice, on behalf of the Social Security Administration,  filed a "Statement of Interest" in the state lawsuit "Union of American Physicians and Dentists v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California" that seeks to stop the mandatory state furlough program.    The state lawsuit, filed in the Alameda County Superior Court, is still pending further action.  It is one of several lawsuits filed by different unions and agencies regarding the mandatory state furloughs.

The Union of American Physicians and Dentists includes state employees of the California Disability Determination Services Division under the Department of Social Services, who evaluate the medical or health part of a person's Social Security Disability or SSI (Supplemental Security Income) claims.  The federal government fully pays for the salaries and overhead costs for these state employees in all 50 states.

The "Statement of Interest" which indicates in this instance support of this specific lawsuit, notes that California's furloughs of these specific state employees are inconsistent with the state's obligations and responsibilities under the federal Social Security Act which requires a state, in carrying out disability determination functions, "to the best of its ability, facilitate the processing of disability claims by avoiding personnel freezes, restrictions against overtime work, or curtailment of facilities or activities."

Commissioner Astrue said in October:

...for many months we have been trying to convince California officials that furloughing [Disability Determination Service Division state] employees does not save the state a single penny, and actually costs the state money.  It also unnecessarily harms their citizens with disabilities and their civil servants. Unfortunately, our arguments have fallen on deaf ears.  We hope our Statement of Interest will awaken state officials to the irreparable damage their furlough policy is causing.

Asture said in October that California’s furlough of Disability Determination Service employees under the Department of Social Services costs the state $849,000 per furlough day in administrative funding and that  ”…each furlough day results in a delay costing California’s disabled citizens over $420,000 in much-needed Social Security benefits”.

The State, represented by the California Department of Justice, is denying those claims in the various lawsuits.

TEXT OF COMISSIONER ASTRUE’S MEMO ORDERING INVESTIGATION

The following is the memo to Social Security Administration Inspector General Patrick P. O’Carroll from Commissioner Astrue, dated November 20^th:

At yesterday’s [November 19^th] hearing before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, I testified about some disturbing practices the State of California has instituted that aggravate, rather than help, in response to its budgetary situation.  As you know, Gov. Schwarzenegger has insisted on furloughing California Disability Determination Service (DDS) employees, despite the fact that we fully fund both their salaries and overhead.  According to Congressman Robert Filner, the State is attempting to find ways to improperly circumvent the effects of the furlough at the expense of some of the State residents who are in the greatest need.

Congressman Filner indicated that since the furloughs began, the California DDS [CDCAN Note: same initials as Department of Developmental Services which is a different state agency] has begun denying the claims of those disability applicants who fail to return a 25-page report within 20 days.  This practice, if true, places applicants in an untenable position because the substantial amount of information required must often be gathered from third parties.  If an applicant fails to return complete information within the time set by the State, the DDS deems the applicant to have failed to cooperate and closes the file, thereby depriving that applicant of fair and full consideration.

I am also greatly concerned by Congressman Filner’s report that the California DDS may be manipulating its service numbers by “staging” claims, assigning them to fictional examiners or supervisors, rather than to actual examiners.  According to Congressman Filner, this practice would allow the DDS to claim that the cases have been assigned, rather than indicate that they are still in queue, thus minimizing the effects of the furlough.

If true, these practices are, of course, very disturbing.  Therefore, I am asking you to undertake a full review of the practices of the California DDS to determine the scope and breadth of any inappropriate practices.

I am also concerned about the State of Hawaii, which is furloughing its DDS employees for as many days as California, and which has made statements about new business efficiencies that closely track statements made by California officials.  Accordingly, I ask that you also review that agency to ensure they are fully adhering to all SSA rules and policies.

Thank you for your assistance.

NOTE: There may be updated information located on our homepage. Also, don’t forget to check out the post tags to narrow your search.

REMEMBERING THE LIVES OF EDWARD M. KENNEDY, EUNICE KENNEDY-SHRIVER, JOAN LEE, DONALD ROBERTS AND BILL YOUNG

Note from Marty Omoto:

I have decided to return to the work of advocacy for the lives that matter. Thanks to all the hundreds of email messages, phone messages from so many people across the state who reminded me what I often have reminded others of: that we are a part of all that we have met – and that we no choice but to continue and to survive, and to fight for what is right and to always remember the lives that mattered – and the lives that still – and will always matter. That is what we fight for. And that is what we cannot let the State or anyone forget.

And we will get through this.

Gandhi once wrote that we must be the change we want to see in the world. And so we will be that change together. Marty Omoto

Schwarzenegger and the budget crisis: it’s easy to target those least able to fight

Los Angeles Times, August 1, 2009

Schwarzenegger and the budget crisis: easy to be hard

Funny, isn’t it, that when the governor scours the state budget for waste, fraud and abuse, he only seems to find it in programs for the old, the young, the poor and others unable to raise campaign funds or muster political opposition.

Like those seniors and disabled people in the state’s In-Home Supportive Services program. IHSS allows them to stay out of nursing homes or other facilities far more expensive for them, their families and ultimately the state and its taxpayers. Clients don’t get direct state payments, just basic care such as meals and changes of clothes and linens. But beware; there could be hundreds of seniors scurrying from county to county under assumed names, trying to rack up as many sponge baths as possible. So California will now crack down by fingerprinting them.

Or those CalWorks recipients, who probably just signed up for welfare to get job training. Well, there are no jobs out there right now, so they must be abusing the system. We showed them — by cutting funding for job training. And then there are the people raking in all that subsidized Medi-Cal and Healthy Families care. They just want to get the state to pay for cheap preventive care so it doesn’t have to pay for expensive emergency care. Nice try. We’ll cull recipients by centralizing the eligibility process, because everyone knows it’s better to run government from Sacramento rather than closer to home.

California had to cut. But there’s a double irony at work. First, the point of the social safety net is to be there when it’s most needed — to ensure that during times of widespread unemployment and financial distress, the people on the edge can avoid falling into an abyss; that’s vital to them, of course, but good for the rest of us too, because it costs more to retrieve the fallen than to keep them out of the abyss in the first place. And second, after they are cut, human service programs get branded as wasteful and fraudulent and get cut again, because they don’t have a California Teachers Assn. or a California Chamber of Commerce standing up for them.

Certainly there are instances of waste and fraud in government. Fingerprinting IHSS providers, who are paid with taxpayer funds, makes some sense. But fingerprinting the home-bound clients? If that’s not an example of new wasteful government spending, it’s hard to know what is.

Meanwhile, instead of cracking down on tax fraud, California is furloughing its tax workers, who will have less time and fewer resources to collect taxes owed. It’s retaining redundant Cabinet offices, which oversee fully staffed state agencies. And in the name of erasing waste, fraud and abuse, it’s leading a devastating march through the path of least political resistance.

California Democrats toss poor, elderly, disabled, and working class overboard

“This is absolutely parallel to the fascism of Europe during the 1930s, in it’s broad attack on the elderly, disabled and poor, who are being scapegoated just as the Jews of Europe were in the 30s. They are turning citizens into aliens, and are trying to turn the elderly and disabled into criminals. I can bear witness to the damage being done to people in my generation, by the horrific effects of the budget cuts taking place,” said Walden, “and I further believe that we have become living targets of a fascist state. As witness to recent events, I am convinced that we are on the road to fascism.”

Indybay Media, July 25, 2009

Democrats sell out California’s poor, elderly, and disabled in budget deal

by Lynda Carson of Tenants Rule

California’s phony bleeding heart liberal democrats have just helped to pass a republican budget deal that shreds California’s safety net, by cutting $15.5 billion from the states service sector to partially close a $26.3 billion funding shortfall in state revenues.

Among other things, the democrats supported a $1.3 billion cut to MediCal, a $2.8 billion cut to the state wide university school system, and a $6 billion cut to California’s K-12 schools. The democratic leadership also supported the republicans push to slash the children’s health insurance program known as Healthy Families, In-Home Supportive Services and the CalWORKs program by cutting $878 million or more in coming months.

Rather than raising taxes on the rich and the major corporations that fail to pay their fair share of the tax burden in California, the democrats chose to side with the republicans and two bit actor ‘Schwarzenegger’ turned governor, in stealing precious resources meant to assist students, children, the sick, disabled, elderly, poor and the working middle class.

Meanwhile, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and other phony liberals continue to remain silent about the budget cutting process taking place in Sacramento, while the true extent of the attacks on the poor, elderly and disabled reaches new heights of deception and depravity.

During recent weeks, numerous calls made to Congresswoman Lee’s office inquiring as to why the powerful congresswoman remains silent about the attack on California’s safety net, have resulted in nothing more than a “BIG NO COMMENT,” coming from her staffers in Washington, including her local spokesperson Ricky Graham, in Oakland. “California’s budget crisis is a state issue, not a federal issue, and therefore Congresswoman Lee has no comment,” said Graham.

Considering that Congresswoman Lee represents millions of people in the great state of California, Ricky Graham’s statement was totally lacking in credibility and humanity.

As California’s democratic leadership including Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg along with a total of 18 democrat sell-outs who supported the republican’s attack on the safety net try to conceal how much damage they have wrought upon the general public, hundreds of thousands of Californians will be hit hard in future months by the budget deal that protects the interests of the mighty rich, as it crushes the lives and interests of the working class poor.

Making matters worse for the elderly, disabled and poor, the democratic leadership granted extreme new powers to the republican minority by agreeing to proposals that do major damage to COLA’s (cost of living increases) for those in CalWORK’s, SSP and other areas of the states safety net, by requiring that any new COLAs for the people in those programs, must be approved by a two-thirds vote in future budget proposals.

At a small July 22, rally in front of Oakland City Hall, Eleanor Walden and her daughter Nasira, publicly spoke out against the republican budget cutting proposals along with Zachary Norris of ‘Books Not Bars’, and Kevin D. Shields the ‘DSRP Coordinator’ for the Disabled Students Program at the University of California, in Berkeley.

“The thought of the democrats siding with the republicans in the fascist proposals being passed to make the elderly and disabled get finger printed because of their participation in the ‘In-Home Supportive Services Program’, is enough to make my blood boil,” said Eleanor Walden, a Berkeley scholar of 20th century American history and folklore.

“This is absolutely parallel to the fascism of Europe during the 1930s, in it’s broad attack on the elderly, disabled and poor, who are being scapegoated just as the Jews of Europe were in the 30s. They are turning citizens into aliens, and are trying to turn the elderly and disabled into criminals. I can bear witness to the damage being done to people in my generation, by the horrific effects of the budget cuts taking place,” said Walden, “and I further believe that we have become living targets of a fascist state. As witness to recent events, I am convinced that we are on the road to fascism.”

Kevin Shields the DSRP Coordinator for disabled students said, “By cutting the social services desperately needed by the disabled and elderly, you create a whole new class of citizens who become angry, frustrated and disillusioned about the system that was meant to assist them in their time of need.”

Lydia Gans of Food Not Bombs said, “We already are seeing a huge increase in the homeless and hungry, due to the effects of a bad economy during our feeding times at People’s Park. The non profits who usually help out are losing funding and donations, and this latest round of budget cutting proposals will increase the level of homelessness and hunger all across the state. What should be happening, is that everyone affected by the budget cuts should be in the streets of Sacramento and cities across the state to protest against the inhumanity and catastrophic effects that are taking place in everyday peoples lives.”

As being proposed by state law makers, theres an additional $8 million in funding to be slashed from the budget for state parks, on top of the $226 million in cuts to IHSS, plus $528 million from CalWORKS, including $124 million in cuts from the Healthy Families program that will negatively affect 930,000 low-income children.

SSI/SSP recipients have already taken a huge 6.4% cut from the state assistance program since February 2009, including the suspension of their cost of living increases that were promised to be payed back, after being grabbed by the governor. It will be nearly impossible to restore the cost of living increases now that the democrats gave new sweeping powers to the republicans who are demanding a two-thirds majority vote to allow a cost of living adjustment to occur in future months and years.

As the democrats try to conceal and deceive the public about the true extent of damage they have done to California’s safety net by siding with the republicans in the vicious attack on children, the disabled, elderly and working class poor, additional budget cuts are expected as the governor prepares to use the line item veto during the next few days to slash another $1.1 billion dollars from the budget, in an attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

A press conference and rally for the ‘People’s Budget Fix’, calling for criminal justice reforms that will increase public safety, protect the social safety net and save the state billions, will take place on July 30, between 11am – 12pm, at the Elihu M. Harris State Building, 1515 Clay St, Oakland, near the 12th St, BART Station.

Contact Jennifer Kim; Jennifer [at] ellabakercenter.org or (510) 285-8234 for more details about the July 30 rally.

Gov. Schwarzenegger, show us the IHSS fraud

LA Times, Opinion, July 14, 2009

Gov. Schwarzenegger, show us the fraud.

By Deborah Doctor

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made fraud in California’s In-Home Supportive Services program a budget issue as the state tries to deal with its financial crisis.

The in-home program provides critical care to 430,000 low-income Californians in their homes so they are not forced to move into institutions or onto the streets. It is often cited — including by Schwarzenegger — as a key to keeping Californians out of nursing homes that would cost the state much more.

// <![CDATA[
// Google AdSense Content Display Functionality
// This function displays the ad results.
// It must be defined above the script that calls show_ads.js
// to guarantee that it is defined when show_ads.js makes the call-back.

function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) {
// Proceed only if we have ads to display!

if (google_ads.length < 1 )
{
document.getElementById('inlinegoogleads').style.display='none';
return;
}

document.write('

');
document.write('
');
if (google_info.feedback_url) {
document.write('');
}
document.write('Ads by Google');
if (google_info.feedback_url) {
document.write('');
}
document.write("
");

// For text ads, display each ad in turn.
// In this example, each ad goes in a new row in the table.
if (google_ads[0].type == ‘text’) {
for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i) {
document.write('
');
document.write('‘ + google_ads[i].line1 + ‘‘);
document.write(‘

‘);
document.write(google_ads[i].line2);
if (google_ads[i].line3 != null && google_ads[i].line3 != ”) {
document.write(‘ ‘);
document.write(google_ads[i].line3);
}
document.write(‘

‘);
document.write(‘‘ + google_ads[i].visible_url + ‘‘);
document.write(‘
‘);
}
}

// Finish up anything that needs finishing up
document.write(“

“);
}

// Google Adsense Configurations
google_ad_client = ‘ca-tribune_news3_html’;
google_ad_output = ‘js’;
google_max_num_ads = ’3′;
google_ad_channel = ‘latimes_articles_inline’;
google_ad_type = ‘text’;
google_kw_type = ‘broad’;
google_color_line = ‘ff0000′;
google_safe = ‘high’;
google_feedback = ‘on’;
google_page_url = ‘http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-doctor14-2009jul14,0,7156240.story&#8217;;
// google_skip=’3′;
// google_last_modified_time = Date.parse(parent.document.lastModified) / 1000;
// google_referrer_url = document.referrer;
// ]]>

Everyone is against fraud, but what exactly is Schwarzenegger talking about? How much of the program’s money is wasted on fraud?

The governor can’t seem to make up his mind. A couple of years ago, he estimated it at 10%, so the state spent thousands and thousands of dollars retraining county social workers, who assess the program’s consumers. After home visits, the social workers discovered that the vast majority of Californians receiving aid were eligible and in need of the services.

On July 2, the governor told a news conference that “our In-Home Supportive Services program is riddled with fraud.” A day later, in an Op-Ed article in this newspaper, he wrote: “Although this kind of abuse of taxpayer dollars is not rampant, we know it exists.” And then last week, basing his numbers on what “some people say,” Schwarzenegger estimated that 25% of the IHSS program is fraud.

In his Op-Ed and in answer to follow-up questions about in-home-care fraud, the governor refers to recent grand jury reports from six counties that found there were no safeguards against fraud in their programs. He cites care providers who collect checks under aliases or who over-report their hours, and he says greater vigilance would save the state hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.

But where are the details?

A Contra Costa Times reporter took a closer look. In San Bernardino County, according to a July 8 story, of 19,798 IHSS recipients, the grand jury found that there were about 60 fraud cases a year referred by investigators. The reporter, James Koren, pointed out that even if all 60 cases were ultimately proved to be fraud, that would yield a rate of 0.3% — not quite “massive amounts of fraud.”

Sacramento County, meanwhile, reported that, in fiscal year 2006-2007, there were 397 reports of suspected fraud out of 17,735 cases, a rate of 2.2%. Of these, 31 were accepted for prosecution, a rate of 0.2% of prosecutable fraud.

In Los Angeles County, the district attorney recently said that, as the largest county with 200,000 In-Home Support Services consumers, L.A. had the largest amount of abuse. However, the Los Angeles Commission for Public Social Services reviewed a 2008 grand jury investigation and found it lacking in documentation, with “no evidence to support the allegations.”

Which brings us back to the governor. He has cited one unfortunate situation — a son, the in-home caregiver for his father, who delivered appallingly poor care — and called that fraud. I understand the point, but in reality this is more an example of elder abuse, not fraud that costs taxpayers money. That’s because no one claims the father wasn’t eligible or deserving. Even if the state had discovered the abuse and stopped paying the son, it wouldn’t have ended the father’s need for help.

If the governor wants to find and eliminate fraud and protect seniors and people with disabilities, he should proceed based on evidence, not on unfounded estimates.

He must be honest about the high costs of proposed anti-fraud measures, such as his suggestion that we launch a mass fingerprinting program for those receiving care and for caregivers. That might help prevent some fraud, but show us the cost-benefit analysis that proves it saves money.

Finally, he should restore the cuts that have reduced the number of county social workers and Adult Protective Services and county ombudsmen, who are the “first responders” against fraud and abuse, and use the same diligence against all providers — including nursing homes, where there is meticulous documentation of needless death and abuse.

He should not single out Californians who need assistance to live at home and the people who help them stay safe.

Deborah Doctor is a legislative advocate at Disability Rights California, the state’s congressionally mandated agency for protecting and advocating for the rights of people with disabilities.

Rejection of California budget sets stage for even larger spending cuts

World Socialist Web Site, June 25, 2009

Rejection of California budget sets stage for even larger spending cuts

By Kevin Martinez and Joe Kishore
25 June 2009

The California legislature failed to get the two-thirds vote needed to pass a Democratic Party proposal to address the state’s $24 billion budget deficit. Democrats will now enter closed-door negotiations with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on a compromise that will include even more massive cuts in social services.

Discussions between the two parties have been ongoing for the last several weeks, much of it in secret and with no public input. Both sides have already agreed that draconian cuts in basic social programs are necessary.

To offset some cuts, however, Democrats had proposed a variety of mainly regressive tax increases, which require the support of a two-thirds majority in the legislature. This proposal failed as expected on Wednesday, largely along party lines. The Democrats control both houses of the state legislature, but do not have a two-thirds majority.

A proposal advanced by Schwarzenegger calls for $16 billion in budget cuts. These include eliminating the state welfare program; shutting down Healthy Families, the health insurance program for 930,000 children; closing 220 state parks; and ending Cal-Grants, which provides aid to poorer students to attend college. Schwarzenegger is also proposing a 5 percent pay cut for state workers, in addition to a 10 percent pay cut already announced.

Public education will be singled out for a large share of the budget cuts. About $5.3 billion would be taken from K-12 education and community colleges over next year, on top of the billions in cuts that have already been enacted.

The so-called “alternative” proposed by the Democrats was a slightly less severe program of $11 billion in budget cuts. The Democrats propose cutting $4.5 billion from K-12 education, $2.8 billion from higher education, and $2.6 billion from health and human services.

Democrats also proposed $2.2 billion in tax increases, including a 9.9 percent levy on oil extracted in California, a $1.50 per pack cigarette tax and a $15 registration fee for vehicles. In an accounting move designed to save $1 billion, Democrats have proposed pushing state workers’ paychecks back one day from June 30 to July 1, the start of the next fiscal year.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat from Sacramento, told the Pasadena Star News, “We present a budget where everybody feels some pain; every part of the safety net takes a cut.”

In fact, both Democrats and Republicans are determined to make the working class pay for the crisis. No matter what compromise is now reached, either through a combination of borrowing from local governments, accounting maneuvering, tax levies, or selling off state assets, a massive attack on the social infrastructure of California is underway.

The Democratic Party accepts the argument that the only way to fix California’s budget deficit is to strangle what remains of public education and the social safety net. Senator Gloria Romero, a Democrat, told The Los Angeles Times, “When someone tells us ‘No new cuts,’ I say, ‘Look, don’t tell me that.’…There is the sense that we must do what we must do to keep California solvent.”

Indeed, the proposed tax increases were largely for show. Even before the vote, Democrats acknowledged that they would not pass. Last week Schwarzenegger responded to a question about what kind of fight he expected over the tax increases by responding, “Well, what is being said and what is being done, as you know, are sometimes two different things.”

The Mercury News commented: “Schwarzenegger was suggesting that Democrats were posturing on their $2.1 billion in tax proposals, putting on what he calls Kabuki theater for their constituents before he expected them to relent to the reality that Republicans will never agree to taxes as part of the solutions lawmakers must find to close the $24.3 billion deficit.”

The budget crisis takes place against the backdrop of the economic collapse of California, the most populous state in the US and, if measured as an independent country, the eight largest economy in the world.

According to government officials, the state will be insolvent by July 28, which has prompted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to threaten to bring the government to a “grinding halt” and stop borrowing to cover the state’s expenses.

The state comptroller, John Chiang, has warned that without a new budget the state will begin issuing “IOUs” in place of cash to social service agencies, private contractors and state vendors. The state’s cash crunch, Chiang said, is unlike anything “seen since the Great Depression.”

Recent figures point to a continued deterioration of the state economy. Unemployment in California soared to 11.5 percent for May, the highest level since World War II. The April unemployment figure was 11.1 percent, compared to 6.8 percent in May 2008. A more complete measure of unemployment, including those forced to work only part time, shows that more than one in five Californians is unemployed or underemployed.

California, accounted for one out of every five jobs lost last month. Out of a population of 37 million people, 2.1 million Californians are officially unemployed, 885,000 more than last month.

The state has been hit particularly hard by the collapse of housing prices, which have wreaked havoc on the real estate market, construction, and other financial related industries. With several major ports on the Pacific Ocean, California is also heavily dependent on world trade, which is falling rapidly.

California saw a decline of 33.8 percent of personal income tax receipts in May. The decline in revenue will mean a new round of austerity measures to balance the state budget, since the state collects half of its revenue from personal income taxes.

The state is under intense pressure from Wall Street to impose concessions. Moody’s Investor Service has threatened California’s general obligation debt with a “multi-notch” downgrading if the state legislature failed to produce a balanced budget before going bankrupt. The state is currently at an A2 credit rating, which are just five notches above speculative status.

A downgrade will mean that the state will face sharply higher interest rates for borrowing, if it is able to gain credit at all.

The Obama administration has responded to the economic meltdown of California by repeatedly refusing federal assistance. Instead, the administration, speaking on behalf of the most powerful sections of the financial elite, is making California an example for other states to follow as they enact austerity budgets.

By abandoning the richest and most populous state to its own devices, the Obama administration has directly contributed to the crisis now unfolding. Trillions are handed out to private banks, but when it comes to the world’s eight largest economy on the verge of bankruptcy, no money is available.

As California collapses, executives at Goldman Sachs and other banks are anticipating record bonuses, returning to business as usual. No faction of the political establishment so much as suggests that those who are responsible for the economic crisis—the wealthy corporate and financial elite—should be made to pay for it.

On the contrary, the budget crisis in California is being used a template to enact cuts to social services all across the country. The ruling class is determined to seize on the economic crisis to restructure class relations in the United States.

Beyond Bad California Budgets

SF Gray Panthers Newsletter, July 2009

Beyond Bad California Budgets

A look at both State and City budgets shows the situation is very severe:  a $24 billion State shortfall and a $438 million San Francisco shortfall. You can also see there’s a severe crisis by looking at death-sentence cuts being seriously considered: no renal dialysis and breast or cervical cancer treatment for Medi-Cal recipients over age 65, or eliminating home care for 90% of IHSS patients.

A big part of the State problem is that liberal and Democratic legislators have the attitude that they must be responsible and pass a budget quickly, with any lethal cuts that business and Republicans demand, so that the state doesn’t go over the edge. But retirees, kids, badly sick or disabled people, or low-wage workers are already over the edge. Many are skipping meals, skipping meds and doctor visits, and late on rent and becoming homeless.  This is not the time for legislative responsibility!  It’s time to say “Never!” to a cuts-only budget.     A budget that does not meet our basic needs does not deserve to exist!  Are you ready, Sacramento?

California’s taxes on corporations and the rich are far less than levels set by Republicans thirty years ago, and are low by national standards.  The February 2009 budget alone contained some $2.5 billion/year in corporate tax loopholes, starting in 2011. Californians are ready for taxes. A David Binder poll last month showed 75% support for both alcohol and tobacco tax increases; 73% support for oil drilling fees; 63% support for both commercial property reassessments, and for a higher income tax on the highest brackets; and 59% support for limiting corporate tax credits.

Ultimately, many are saying we need to get rid of the requirement of a 2/3 vote of legislators to pass a budget.  After seeing the devastating cuts and the  “tyranny of the minority” in recent year’s budget battles, one might think this was a no-brainer.  However, according to Jodi Reid, of CARA, recent polling is NOT in favor of repealing this requirement, and it is precisely seniors, retirees, and other fixed-income people who want to keep it.  We will have our work cut out for us to persuade our cohorts to abandon politics of fear and isolation if we hope to ax the 2/3 requirement as a November, 2010 ballot measure.

Bail Out the Banks, But Not A Million California Kids in Healthy Families, or Half a Million on CalWorks

Truthdig Reports, May 26, 2009

Stuff the Bankers, Starve the Kids

By Robert Scheer

All sorts of startling conclusions are being drawn about the failure of California’s ballot funding initiatives last week. Newt Gingrich hailed it as another Boston Tea Party, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that it condemns California, one of the world’s largest economies, to banana republic status. But if it was such a big deal, how come the voter turnout was so low?

Maybe because the statewide ballot initiatives were a bit of a political practical joke played by a Republican governor and leading Democrats pretending to be dealing on a statewide basis with the consequences of a national economic crisis that can be solved only through massive federal intervention. There is no way that the people of any state will vote to increase their taxes in the midst of a deep recession, and certainly not when the funding demands seem to have little to do with solving the problem at hand. As a subheading in the ever-sober Economist magazine put it, “Voters reject a ballot they could not comprehend.”

I tried, and after reading the opposing argument in the literature supplied at my nearly empty polling station I voted for the ballot propositions that our governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had requested. I assumed that this would help our vastly underfunded inner-city schools. Later, my son Chris, who teaches in one of those schools, told me that I might have been wrong and that the convoluted paragraphs of the all too typically obtuse California propositions could not improve matters much at all.

So, filled with doubt and guilt, I took solace in the fact that in terms of the money involved it wasn’t that big a deal, and that surely the feds, to whom we Californians send more in revenue than any other state, would bail us out as they have the banks. Heck, the entire projected California budget shortfall comes to only $21 billion, a tiny fraction of the banking bailout. Yes, only—what is $21 billion in federal loan guarantees for California to skirt bankruptcy compared with the $45 billion given to Citigroup, along with $300 billion more in guarantees for that company’s toxic paper? Or how about the $185 billion doled out to AIG? If Citigroup is too big to fail, isn’t the state of California? Does anyone seriously believe that the national economy can snap back to health if California is in the dump?

The cause of California’s, and almost every other state’s, predicament is an economy ruined by deregulation policies that were secured by the lobbying efforts of Wall Street, led most prominently by Citigroup. So, I expected a federal government that has spent trillions salvaging the banks that got us into this mess to find the relatively minor sums needed to bail out California and other states that have been the victims of Wall Street’s dangerous games.

But I didn’t count on the tough-love steeliness of President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod, who told Californians that “there’s a limit to what the government can do” when it comes to bailing out our state (as opposed to the banks). Or of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “Obviously, the state has to make some very tough fiscal decisions … [given] the budgetary constraints that they have.”

Tough for whom? Not the politicians of either party. The results of such decisions are tough for the poor of America, two-thirds of whom are kids, left to the tender mercy of the states, thanks to the sweeping “welfare reform” and other programs put into place by the Clinton White House in one of that Democratic administration’s signature triangulation ploys.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the direction of those difficult choices in a story headlined “Poor would be hard hit by proposed California budget cuts,” which stated that Schwarzenegger “is considering a plan to slash California’s safety net for the poor by eliminating the state’s main welfare program, health insurance for low-income families and cash grants to college students.”

Bail out the banks, but not the 500,000 poor families with children served by the CalWorks program, which will be dismantled, or the 928,000 children covered by the Healthy Families program, slated for oblivion.

At a time when the feds are spending with such abandon in an effort to stimulate the economy, why is it tolerable to leave states in a position where they are forced to fire teachers? As the Los Angeles Times reported: “Schwarzenegger has proposed slashing state spending on education by $3 billion to help close the budget gap, and the state would pay dearly for canceling classes, firing instructors, cutting class days and shortening the school year, experts said.” How can there be federal funds readily available for banker bonuses but not to keep teachers in the classroom with their students? It must have been the kids who caused the meltdown.