Crisis calls for alternatives

California’s budget crisis and the governor’s proposed $24 billion dollars of cuts and borrowing have provoked thousands of constituents to contact me. Educators, in-home support service (IHSS) providers, healthy families advocates, state parks supporters, and many others have lodged strong opposition to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s May revised budget proposals that seek to balance California’s budget on the backs of our state’s most vulnerable and needy.
While there is no way to balance the state’s budget without deep and severe cuts to virtually all state-funded program areas, the governor’s revision seeks to eliminate programs that will result in the loss of federal matching funds and “multiple factor match” federal dollars.
An example of this is the governor’s proposal to eliminate the Family Planning Access, Car, and Treatment (FPACT) program, which provides counseling and family planning services to young women. Each dollar spent by California triggers a $9 federal match. If California was to eliminate FPACT, we would forfeit federal dollars as well as increase the incidence of unwanted pregnancies, unwanted babies and create a greater burden on social services programs.
Because spending cuts are inevitable, a critical question for the Legislature, the governor and all Californians is what price are we prepared to pay for the elimination of programs, some of which will inevitably result in the loss of human life?
I recently received correspondence from a couple who care for their severely disabled adult son. They receive IHSS payments in addition to each of them working part-time jobs. They arrange their shifts at work in order for one parent to always be present to take care of their son. The proposed cuts to IHSS may result in this couple having to remove their son from their home and having to secure an alternative living arrangement, a move that could cost the state and taxpayers more than $1,000 a day.
These parents fear that if they have to move their son into a care facility, he will not receive the same tender and loving care they are able to provide for $72 a day of taxpayer money.
There are alternative budget solutions for which I am advocating.
Seventy-five percent of Californians favor raising the tax on tobacco. California ranks 32nd among states in terms of the tax levy we place on a pack of cigarettes (87 cents). By increasing the tobacco tax by $1, California would generate $1.7 billion in new revenue, enough to save the Healthy Families Program and our state parks.
An oil severance fee has the potential to generate another $1 billion and could ease the governor’s proposal of borrowing from local government revenues.
Other solutions are available as well, but the fundamental question at this stage of negotiations is what type of state does California aspire to be, even amid this recessionary crisis.
It is my belief, affirmed by thousands of letters, faxes and phone calls, that Californians do not favor balancing the state deficit on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable.
And, while there are no easy solutions, the decision of the governor and the Legislature should be informed by some core principles including the preservation of life, the maintenance of services necessary to capture federal dollars, and the sharing of pain among all Californians.
It is time for all caring Californians, including businesses, service organizations and taxpayers, to communicate directly with the governor’s office to send a unified message that is grounded in recognition of the moral imperative to “do no harm” to those whose lives depend on us.
Assemblyman Bill Monning represents the 27th Assembly District, which includes Scotts Valley and most of unincorporated Santa Cruz County.