Can’t really argue with the message, however:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this afternoon said Assembly lawmakers “don’t have the guts” to make the cuts to the state prison system, criticizing them as politically motivated for stalling on a plan that would reduce the number of inmates in state lockups to save money.

“They don’t have the guts to go in there and to make the prison reform that they have been talking about for two decades, which we need to reduce the amount of inmates in there,” Schwarzenegger said in a webcast interview with the co-founders of Twitter at the company’s headquarters in San Francisco.

“The Assembly legislators, for them it was easier to go and make the $10-billion cut in education, but it is impossible for them to make the $1-billion cut” for prisons, he said.

I’ve been plenty vocal about the cowardice of lawmakers who actually voted for a sentencing commission two years ago, but who cannot do it now because of how it might affect them in their next election.  But Arnold Schwarzenegger making this statement is RICH.

Has he ever signed a bill that the Chamber of Commerce told him not to?

Has he ever dealt with the prison crisis, which has gone on throughout his entire tenure, up until this point?

Has he bothered to lift a finger while the state truly tumbled into the nether regions, with its safety net destroyed, its economy in tatters and its outlook bleak, at best?

Has he ever even had a sleepless night while all of this happened, instead of laying back with a stogie?

Maybe those who want to see a smart prison policy should get someone who isn’t as cowardly as the Assembly to make the message that the Assembly is cowardly.

Did you want to go to the state park this weekend? It does sound splendid and relaxing doesn’t it? And, vacations are good for your health. Well, expect higher fees at most state parks.  Some fees will almost double.  The Times has a representative sample of some of those fee hikes. Just another little tax brought to you by the Republican Party.

But while the fee hikes are annoying, they aren’t anything when compared to the specter of the mass closure of our parks.  Park closures are, post budget slash and burn, inevitable. The closure list isn’t supposed to come out until Labor Day or so, but there’s already panic amongst park-goers.  Take the Marshall Gold Discovery State Historical Park in El Dorado County:

Scott Nakaji, superintendent of the Park Department’s Gold Fields District, said the park surrounding the site of Sutter’s Mill on the south fork of the American River likely will close for at least two years unless other funding sources are found.

Operating Marshall park at a minimal level would cost about $760,000 a year. With annual average revenue of $197,000, Nakaji said, approximately $565,000 would have to be raised each year to offset eliminated state general fund money. (SacBee 8/21/09)

The park is actually in the district of Supervisor Ron Briggs, who is fighting the closure.  That name sound familiar? Yup, he’s the son of John Briggs, the proponent of 1978’s Proposition 6 that appeared in the movie Milk. That being said, if you are interested in keeping that park open, you can meet him at 6 p.m. in the park picnic area behind the museum.  

With superior name recognition, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi is the front-runner in the September election to replace Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.  But a Garamendi victory could spell disaster for a cause he has made a centerpiece of his campaign platform, and has supported throughout his whole career – the environment.  As Lieutenant Governor, Garamendi sits on the California State Lands Commission – a three-person body that wields enormous power on environmental issues.  Recently, Garamendi led the charge on the Commission to successfully kill Governor Schwarzenegger’s move to allow offshore oil drilling on the Pacific Coast – by a 2-1 vote.  If Garamendi gets elected to Congress, he will have to resign from the State Lands Commission – and Arnold will get to pick his successor.  Garamendi has the Sierra Club endorsement in this race, due to his campaign platform.  But will the environmental community be happy after he wins the seat, and his replacement potentially votes to allow offshore oil drilling?

In an election to become 435th in seniority in the U.S. House of Representatives, some of the leading candidates have been accused of “giving up” their current elected position – and jeopardizing progressive politics.  State Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Assembly member Joan Buchanan would both have to give up their seats in the legislature, which will necessitate another special election.  Some have argued that because Republicans continuously hold the state budget hostage, progressives cannot afford to lose a single Democratic seat in Sacramento.  But Democrats don’t have a two-thirds majority right now with DeSaulnier and Buchanan – so the impact of a vacancy would be at worst minimal.  Moreover, at least DeSaulnier is guaranteed to be replaced by a Democrat.

But who would replace John Garamendi?  The question has not received much attention – in part because no one really knows what a Lieutenant Governor does.  We all know that, like the Vice President, the Lieutenant Governor is next in line after the Governor.  But the Lieutenant Governor, by virtue of their elected position, also gets to sit on various bodies – such as the UC Board of Regents, the CSU Board of Trustees, the Ocean Protection Council, the California Emergeny Council and (most importantly) the State Lands Commission.

The State Lands Commission votes on crucial environmental issues, such as authorizing whether to allow offshore oil drilling.  And it only has three members: (1) the Lieutenant Governor, (2) the Controller (currently a Democrat, John Chiang) and (3) the Governor’s Finance Director.  If the Lieutenant Governor resigns – which Garamendi would do if he wins the election – the Governor would appoint his replacement, subject to confirmation by both houses of the state legislature.  On other commissions, allowing Schwarzenegger to fill a vacancy is not a big deal.  But here, Arnold would effectively get a 2-1 majority.

In the past few months, Schwarzenegger has attempted to resume offshore oil drilling, as a shameful and dishonest means of “raising revenue” for the state.  Forget, for a moment, the environmental consequences of such a move.  The revenue raised from “oil drilling leases” to companies would be minimal – because the Governor adamantly refuses to charge companies an oil severance tax, although Texas and Alaska have one.

California has not allowed offshore oil drilling for 41 years, since the Santa Barabara oil spill.  But it has become a hot topic in the Congressional race, in part because Garamendi has made it a central part of his campaign.  He takes credit for leading the charge at the State Lands Commission, and – by a two-to-one vote – stopped Arnold from selling the Ocean to oil companies.  Garamendi even started a Facebook group last June to put grassroots pressure on the issue – and generate free publicity for himself.

But the obvious question beckons – what would happen if Arnold controlled two of the three votes on the State Lands Commission?  Garamendi deserves credit for blocking offshore oil drilling, but he only has that power because he is Lieutenant Governor.  If he wins a seat in Congress, Arnold could appoint his replacement – who would then get a vote on the State Lands Commission.  The prospect of that happening is quite scary.

Garamendi had to answer that question at a recent meeting of the East Bay Young Democrats.  He replied the state legislature would “never allow it” to happen, because offshore oil drilling is such a crucial concern.  The Governor appoints the Lieutenant Governor if there is a vacancy, but both houses of the state legislature must confirm by a majority vote.  And because the legislature stood up to Arnold on this issue during the state budget, it is reasonable to expect them to raise such questions during the confirmation process.

However, there are three reasons why the state legislative “check” may not be enough.

First, the State Lands Commission deals with a lot more than just offshore oil drilling.  According to its website, its mission is “providing stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through economic development, protection, preservation, and restoration.”  And like the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the State Lands Commission must deal with powerful corporate interests with a lot of money at stake.  Offshore oil drilling is one of them – but on low-profile environmental issues, Arnold’s two-to-one majority could get a free pass.

Second, political appointees frequently make promises to the state legislature during the confirmation process – only to break them later.  For example, CPUC Commissioner Rachelle Chong, promised in 2005 before her confirmation that she would be a consumer advocate against deceptive AT&T practices.  Now, she is trying to de-regulate Lifeline telephone service.

Third, state legislators may have their own agenda in approving Arnold’s appointee for Lieutenant Governor.  Everyone expects Schwarzenegger to appoint a Republican, and some have speculated it will be State Senator Abel Maldonado.  Democrats would be all too thrilled to get rid of Maldonado, because it would launch a special election for his Central Coast district – giving Democrats the chance to have a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  Legislators may calculate that the benefit of passing a budget without the GOP extremists holding the state hostage exceeds the possible dangers of offshore oil drilling.

Garamendi picked the wrong district to run for Congress, because he could have run in the 3rd District against Republican Dan Lungren.  But he took the easy way out by picking a blue district, which by sheer name recognition he could win a special election.  Now, as the Governor threatens to pursue offshore oil drilling and other threats, a Garamendi victory could undermine all the environmental work he has championed throughout his political career.

And that’s not a legacy that he would be proud of.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

More details have emerged about the prison reform legislation both houses of the Legislature will take up tomorrow, and according to multiple sources, it will include a sentencing commission, a major victory for reformers if it passes.

Legislative Democrats will push a commission to create a new system for prison sentences as part of Democrats’ prison overhaul plan, which will be voted on the floor of both houses Thursday.

The commission, which has been pushed for by liberal Democrats for years, has been a major rift between Democrats and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in recent years. But changes made this week over who controls the commission seem to have the governor’s OK […]

Under a draft proposal circulating in the Capitol Wednesday, the new commission would be called the California Public Safety Commission. The panel would consist of 13 members, including the corrections secretary, chief justice of the state Supreme Court and the state public defender. The governor would make eight appointments to the board. The chief justice would make the other two appointments, both of whom must be retired judges.

The bill calls for the commission to present a new set of parole and sentencing rules to the Legislature by June 1, 2012.

I don’t really like the Governor controlling 8 of the 13 appointments, just for balance-of-power reasons.  But if that’s the price of support, and if it truly will make recommendations based on the law and the data, I can live with it.  And remember, the commission wouldn’t produce findings until June 2012.  In the interim we will have a new Governor who could make alternative commission recommendations.  

Most important, having an independent commission whose rules would have the force of law unless repealed by the legislature (a much more lasting solution than if they have to positively endorse them with a vote) does really change the game around sentencing in California.  It may not work perfectly, but it could really make a difference, and the alternative is the legislature adding one sentencing increase after another as they have done for the last 30 years, and a prison system collapsing under its own weight, as the Governor said today.

Now, I don’t agree with all the aspects of prison reform as laid out by the Governor and the Legislature (here’s the bill).  I think reducing funding for rehabilitation, educational and vocational training programs by $175 million, as called for in the part of the legislation the Governor will enact by line-item appropriation, is insane and completely counter-productive.  And I don’t see how lowering reimbursement rates for doctors and nurses operating in the prisons, at a time when prison health care is in the hands of a federal receiver, is even legal.  But the sentencing commission is crucial enough, and some of the other reforms similarly salutary (like ending blanket parole supervision and concentrating on those with the most serious offenses, or increasing early release credits for those who meet rehabilitation milestones), that I have to accept at least what the Legislature is doing, if not the Governor (most of the bad stuff are in his line items).

The Legislature and Governor are splitting the work here to make the $524 million in cuts more palatable to potential “tough on crime” lawmakers wary of the vote.  Greg Lucas thinks that Democrats may not have the votes in the Assembly.

There are 50 Democrats in the lower house. A bill reducing prison spending requires 41 votes. That allows Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, a Los Angeles Democrat, to give “passes” to nine of her members.

Certainly four Democrats Bass would allow not to vote on the bill are those targeted for defeat in 2010 by Republicans – the incumbents of Assembly Districts, 10, 15, 78 and 80.

They are, respectively: Alyson Huber of El Dorado Hills, Joan Buchanan of Alamo, Marty Block of San Diego and Mannie Perez of Coachella.

Certainly the three Assembly members running for Attorney General would want to be spared from having to vote for the bill. The Attorney General is commonly perceived as being California’s “Top Cop.”

They are: Ted Lieu of Torrance, Pedro Nava of Santa Barbara and Alberto Torrico of Fremont.

In June, Fresno Assemblyman Juan Arambula, a moderate Democrat, re-registered as an independent. In July, he voted with his former Democratic colleagues to close an estimated $24 billion hole in the budget. But whether that willingness extends to prison cuts that will release more parolees into his Central Valley district is uncertain.

Among other Democrats, casting a perceived “anti-public safety” vote would not be a popular in the districts of Cathleen Galgiani of Tracy and Anna Caballero of Salinas.

The governor holds little or no sway with Assembly Republicans so the odds are against him convincing any GOP lawmakers to vote for the bill. That leaves Speaker Bass with a math problem.

We MUST get enough of these Assemblymembers to vote for any bill with a sentencing commission.  Gloria Romero’s sentencing commission bill in 2007, which was better, died in the Assembly, with help from many of these people.  If Karen Bass can knuckle down on her caucus to vote for disastrous cuts to the social safety net, she can find enough to pass the widest-reaching reform package in prisons in 30 years.  If you’re in the districts of any of these lawmakers, contact them NOW and tell them to vote Yes on ABX3 14.

Alyson Huber (AD-10) (Calitics raised a fair bit of money for her)

Joan Buchanan (AD-15) (Does she want to win a liberal primary for Congress?)

Marty Block (AD-78)

Manuel Perez (AD-80) (Calitics raised a fair bit of money for him)

Ted Lieu (AD-53)

Pedro Nava (AD-35)

Alberto Torrico (AD-20)

Cathleen Galgiani (AD-17)

Anna Caballero (AD-28)

They don’t have to give in to the Tough on Crime mentality which has destroyed our prison system.  They can look toward a better future, with sensible policy that saves money and makes Californians safer.

(I’ve been meaning to promote this for a couple of days. Confirmations don’t always get the level of attention they should. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Low-income telephone customers won a brief reprieve last month, after the California Public Utilities Commission temporarily shelved a dangerous plan to gut the Universal Lifeline program.  But the battle is far from over.  While the AT&T backed plan is being “re-written” at the CPUC, the measure’s sponsor – Commissioner Rachelle Chong – is up for a confirmation vote by the State Senate to a full six-year term.  Yesterday, a diverse coalition of advocates went to Sacramento to lobby against Chong’s re-appointment.  Two residential hotel tenants from the Central City SRO Collaborative who were selected by their peers to go joined senior advocates, consumer groups, Latino leaders and faith based groups – to express strong opposition to a Commissioner who has disregarded the CPUC’s mandate to protect consumers.  After a grueling day at the State Capitol, we met with four of the five members of the Senate Rules Committee – and all four of San Francisco’s delegation in the legislature.  “I’m impressed,” said State Senator Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), after we told him who else we had met with that day.  “I can’t even get a meeting with four of my colleagues in one day.”

The California Public Utilities Commission is one of the most powerful bodies in the state, with a budget as large as the state General Fund.  The five CPUC Commissioners are supposed to look out for consumers and regulate utility industries, but too often fall under the influence of PG&E and AT&T.  Appointed by the Governor to a six-year term, the only “check” on the CPUC’s power is a confirmation vote by the State Senate – but rejections almost never happen.  But we were going to try to stop Commissioner Chong.

Universal Lifeline is a program mandated by the state legislature – but regulated by the CPUC – which provides a “no-frills” telephone line at an affordable rate of $6.11/month – allowing poor people to keep in touch with doctor’s appointments, job interviews and loved ones.  But Commissioner Chong’s proposal replaced the flat rate with 55% of the highest market price (when AT&T has jacked up telephone rates.)  Only after hundreds of seniors and low-income tenants representing various organizations spoke out at multiple hearings did the CPUC suspend this proposal, but it will be back after Chong gets confirmed.

For Catalina Dean, who lives at the McAllister Hotel – where her income is $104/month under Care Not Cash – the idea of keeping Chong on the CPUC is absurd.  “What else is her job,” she asked, “if it’s not to look out for low-income people who need a phone?”

But other groups oppose Chong’s confirmation.  For the first time ever, the largest three consumer rights groups in California – TURN (The Utility Reform Network), UCAN (Utility Consumer Action Network) and the Greenlining Institute – are working together to oppose a CPUC nominee.  Hene Kelly of the California Alliance of Retired Americans (and San Francisco Senior Action Network) also joined us on the lobbying trip to oppose Chong, as did Minister L.B. Tatum of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches.

And Chong has alienated many ethnic-based groups who had once supported her on the CPUC to represent their community interests.  “When the Governor appointed Chong in 2005 [to complete Susan Kennedy’s unexpired term],” said Sam Kang of the Greenlining Institute, “a lot of us supported here confirmation.”  But leaders like Faith Bautista of the Mabuhay Alliance, and Viola Gonzales of the Latino Issues Forum were there to explain how Chong had not reached out to their communities.  “When I complained to Chong about diversity issues,” said Kang, “she said that it’s not her job to ‘enforce quotas.'”

Chong has also broken earlier promises, such as: (a) restoring consumer protections against deceptive AT&T marketing practices, (b) convening public hearings to solicit input for basic phone service and (c) protecting limited English proficient customers by requiring companies to provide contracts in the same language as marketing materials.

Our delegation met with the four state legislators who represent San Francisco – Senators Mark Leno and Leland Yee, and Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Tom Ammiano – all of whom had submitted letters to the CPUC opposing Chong’s deregulation of Lifeline.  Although none of them are on the Senate Rules Committee, we dropped by to thank them for their support – and to ask them to help persuade their colleagues to oppose Chong.

We also met personally with four of the five members of the Senate Rules Committee – Democrats Darrell Steinberg (who is also President of the State Senate), Jenny Oropeza and Gil Cedillo, and Republican Bob Dutton.  We also met with the Chief of Staff of Republican Senator Sam Aanestad.  Before the State Senate gets to vote on Chong’s confirmation, it must first pass a hearing at the Senate Rules Committee – when our delegation will return to Sacramento, and speak out during public comment.

Chong’s confirmation was scheduled for next week’s Senate Rules Committee.  But the hearing has now been postponed – along with all of Governor Schwarzenegger’s appointments – due to State Senate President Darrell Steinberg’s strong disapproval of Arnold’s “blue-pencil” budget cuts that hurt the most vulnerable Californians.  Steinberg and other Democrats have filed a lawsuit against the Governor, alleging that these cuts are unconstitutional.  I thanked Steinberg for his leadership on Arnold’s budget cuts, and reminded him that Chong’s actions at the CPUC are hurting the very same people.

The other two Democrats on the Committee might vote “no” on confirming Chong.  Gil Cedillo has long been a champion for the poor (such as his controversial legislation to ban “patient dumping”), and we hope he will take a similar stand on CPUC appointees who are messing with Lifeline.  Jenny Oropeza has also been willing to take a stand on commissioners.  For example, she recently blocked the confirmation of a homophobic appointee to a public safety commission.  We hope she will also do the right thing here.

By being the point-person for deregulating Lifeline telephone service, Commissioner Rachelle Chong has jeopardized her tenure on the CPUC.  And for low-income people across California who are struggling in this economy, they’d be glad to see her go.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

After the Legislative Counsel’s Opinion yesterday saying the Governor’s “blue pencil” vetoes of $500 million of spending, there was a loud chorus of “Amen” from the Legislators:

“This clearly reinforces what we believe all along,” said Assemblyman John Pérez (D-Los Angeles), who requested the legislative counsel’s opinion.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) said it underscored her feeling that Schwarzenegger’s line-item vetoes “are as unconstitutional as they are unconscionable.” (LAT 8/5/09)

Now, the question is who will be the group that steps up and sues to restore funding, and just how soon that case can be filed. There have been whispers of a few groups and non-profits gathering together to file in the beginning of next week. We’ll get back to you when we hear more.

From today’s Beyond Chron.

It’s official.  With the new state budget, the City is losing more money from Sacramento this year than what we have gained from Washington.  President Obama’s stimulus means that San Francisco is getting $92 million more from the federal government than last year, but the combined February and June budgets from Sacramento took $98 million away.  And that doesn’t count the $109 million in local tax revenue the state will “borrow” from us to balance their budget.

Virtually all the state cuts affect health and human services, making it even more crucial that the Board of Supervisors protect the $43.7 million in “add-back” money they fought so hard to restore.  Mayor Gavin Newsom will propose $18.4 million in unilateral mid-year cuts in response to the state budget, but the deal struck with Budget Chair John Avalos is that he must give the Board a formal chance to weigh in.  And because Supervisor David Campos’ amendment put part of the City budget on reserve, the Board still controls up to $12 million in Police and $6.5 million in Fire Department funds.  It’s time to use that leverage, and revisit those budgets.

Barack Giveth, But Arnold Taketh Away

According to the Mayor’s initial budget proposal on June 1st, San Francisco will get about $92 million more in federal funds this year – largely from the President’s stimulus package.  But even before the state budget was finalized last week, our funding from Sacramento had already been cut by $62 million.  Now, cumulative state cuts to the City from the February and June budgets are at least $98 million, wiping out the federal stimulus.

To plug a $26 billion deficit, the state budget made a total of $15 billion in cuts, and “borrowed” up to $11 billion from local governments.  The state is required by law to “pay back” localities within three years – with interest.  Rather than a balanced approach at solving the budget crisis by passing some revenue, the state simply cut and borrowed.

Here is how the state budget numbers translate for San Francisco, in a preliminary report released by the City Controller: (a) $36.4 million in cuts – almost entirely affecting health and human services, (b) $18.6 million in Redevelopment funds “borrowed” and (c) a $91 million hit in “borrowed” local property tax revenue.  

According to a recent New York Times editorial, California is not alone.  States are in tough times and have to make fiscal sacrifices, with cuts that canceled out most of what they got from the federal stimulus.  “States cannot avoid raising taxes to help balance their budgets,” warned the Times editorial. “But tax increases on high-income residents are less harmful than spending cuts.”

Nevertheless, Governor Schwarzenegger – and the Republicans in the state legislature – refused to support any tax increase whatsoever. They would not repeal $2 billion in corporate tax loopholes that were placed in the February budget, refused to consider an oil severance tax (putting them to the right of Sarah Palin on that issue) and opposed raising the upper-income tax bracket that GOP Governors Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson agreed to do when the state hit hard times.  Now, cities are left holding the bag.

According to the City Controller, San Francisco can borrow the $108 million it is losing from the state “borrowing” our redevelopment and property tax revenue – so that figure should not translate into immediate budget cuts.  But we still must deal with the $36.4 million in direct state budget cuts.  

The City budget that Mayor Newsom and the Supervisors passed set aside an $18 million “safety cushion” to deal with future state cuts, and this money will now be used to back-fill the impact.  But it means we must find another $18.4 million in cuts (or revenue alternatives) for San Francisco.

State Cuts Leave San Francisco With a Choice

Practically all of the state cuts are in health and human services.  Out of the $36.4 million in direct cuts to San Francisco, $20 million went to the Department of Public Health and $16 million to the Human Services Agency.  Only the Sheriff’s Department (and no other City agency) also got hit by the state budget – with $500,000 from an extra day of monthly furloughs.  Cuts in the state prison system will also mean the Sheriff has to absorb more inmates at the County Jail – but we don’t know yet how much more that will cost.

These cuts are hitting departments that have already been ravaged.  When Mayor Gavin Newsom submitted his City budget proposal in June, it was the first time in recent history that more local General Fund dollars would go to Police than to Public Health, and more to the Fire Department than Human Services.  He cut $24 million out of Human Services, and $97 million from Public Health.  (NOTE: While Newsom announced on June 1st that public health would only get a $43 million cut, Beyond Chron quickly disproved that claim.)

The Board of Supervisors did what they could to stop the bleeding.  During the “add-back” process, the Budget & Finance Committee managed to save $43.7 million in programs – work that now hangs in jeopardy, as the Mayor makes mid-year cuts to find $18.4 million.  All the DPH-funded programs that the Board restored only totaled $12.5 million – or less than what the state is now cutting in public health funds.  Human Services “add-backs” totaled $4.1 million – or a quarter of what the state is now slashing from that department.

When you break it down further, it gets scary.  The Budget Committee saved about one million dollars in cuts to AIDS housing, prevention and treatment.  Now, the state cut $4.6 million of the AIDS money we were counting on.  Eight million dollars in mental health and substance abuse funds were restored during the “add-back” process, but the state just cut $3 million.  The Board worked to preserve $1.28 million to keep homeless shelters open and provide other direct homeless services, but the state has now cut $2.8 million in TANF shelter funds.

Health and human services already suffered cuts at the local level.  Now with the state budget, we need to make cuts elsewhere.

Holding the Mayor Accountable

The “official” budget season is now over, and the Board of Supervisors don’t have much power to make appropriations like they did in June and July.  The Mayor can make unilateral mid-year cuts because projected revenues from the state are not there, and in the past he has not treated the Board like equal partners.  A Charter Amendment to remedy this inequity failed to get put on the November ballot, so for now this is the system the Supervisors are stuck with.

Budget Chair John Avalos, however, got Newsom to agree to a certain level of accountability – codified in the budget ordinance.  After the Controller completes his analysis of state budget cuts (this week’s report was only preliminary; expect a final report by September 14), the Mayor has 21 days to submit a plan for mid-year cuts to the Supervisors – in other words, submit a supplemental de-appropriation.  The cuts cannot take effect until 45 days later, giving the Supervisors time to review the plan and hold hearings.  In other words, no mid-year cuts can go into effect until two months after the Controller’s Report.

The Supervisors can approve the Mayor’s mid-year cut proposal, amend it or “do nothing.”  It’s not an ideal situation (after all, amending it would require a super-majority), but it will be a marked improvement over the last mid-year cuts.  Back then, Newsom never even submitted a proposal to the Board for formal approval.  And only because the Supervisors proposed their own mid-year cuts did we even have formal hearings.  This process will give activists breathing room to push for different budget solutions, and it’s time to come up with creative solutions now.

Police and Fire Departments Must “Share the Pain”

When the Supervisors negotiated the City budget in June, they secured some reductions in the Police and Fire Departments from what Mayor Newsom had initially proposed.  But compared with what other agencies have sustained, we still don’t have a real “share the pain” budget.

Five million dollars off the Police budget still gave them $9 million more than what they got last year, and a $6 million cut from the Fire Department still gives the bloated agency a two million dollar raise.  In contrast, Human Services took a $20 million hit in the budget and Public Health got even more – despite a historic level of “add-back” money that the Board managed to scrounge up.

Normally, demanding that these agencies “share the pain” can only be done during budget season — when the Supervisors still have some clout.  But this year, they can still make such demand — thanks to a last-minute maneuver at the July 21st Board meeting.

Before passing the budget, the Board voted to put $45 million of the City budget “on reserve.”  Sponsored by David Campos, the amendment (which is in the final document that the Mayor signed) requires Newsom to come back to the Supervisors before spending that money – which now gives them leverage if he makes cuts to health and human services.  Twelve million of the money in question is in the Police budget, and $6.5 million is in the Fire Department.  In other words, up to 18.5 million dollars in cuts could be made to the Police and Fire Departments because of this reserve.

During the budget season, Beyond Chron analyzed the Fire Department budget – and identified over eight million dollars the City could cut that sensibly targeted the top brass, without re-opening negotiations their union contracts.  Another six million dollars could be found if the union – like all other public employee unions – agree to a “give-back,” for a total of $15 million.  But the Supervisors only cut $6 million.  The Board  still controls another $6.5 million of their budget in “reserves,” and now is the time to ask for a few concessions.

The Police Department could also be cut, as the Supervisors still have $12 million of their budget on reserve.  But it will be trickier, because there are not as many superfluous “top brass” positions like in the Fire Department.  The Police budget has exploded in recent years due to a generous union contract Newsom negotiated in 2007, and most of the increased costs come from retirement.  We would need cops (and firefighters) to increase their contributions to their retirement fund, which could help generate savings for the City.  After all, they explicitly promised to do so when the voters gave them 90% pensions.

One of the better tangible policy changes during the first 6 months of the Obama Administration is the expansion of SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.  Starting from the premise that all children deserve access to health insurance, SCHIP is a state/federal partnership that seeks to cover children who fall between the gaps, whose families make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough money to afford health insurance.  The program has been wildly successful since its introduction under the Clinton Administration, and virtually every state has expanded their state-based SCHIP budgets to cover the maximum amounts of children.

Every state except California, that is.  As part of the budget revision, the Legislature cut Healthy Families, causing between a $128 and $144 million shortfall in the program’s current budget.  With his veto pen, the Governor (illegally?) slashed $50 million more.  The total, as much as a $194 million shortfall, is over 50% of its budget.  This has led to the only waitlisting in the country for an SCHIP program.

The program already froze enrollment earlier this month, quickly amassing a waiting list of some 22,000 kids in need of health care, and swapped its application payment assistance program for $4.6 million in savings. Now, to cope with the cuts, it’s expecting to disenroll hundreds of thousands of participants starting later this fall […]

No talk of preserving a safety net for the neediest here. Disenrollment will be based on when participants entered the program. Children who hit their one-year coverage anniversary will not be eligible to renew their enrollment, and will instead be moved to that growing waiting list.

“At this point, it is strictly based on eligibility renewal dates,” Puddefoot said. “Those children who were enrolled in July or August, and those children who were first enrolled in September will be the first to be disenrolled.

This could impact as many as 900,000 children.

Officials with the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board met in Sacramento today to figure out the policy for waitlisting or disenrollment, and to explore additional avenues of support to fill the program gap.  Many have speculated that First Five, the successful voter-approved program to support young children, could provide some funding, but they cannot cover a $194 million dollar hole, and their mandate allows them only to support children between 0-5.  At the meeting, the board basically punted.

The task of shedding hundreds of thousands of children from the public Healthy Families health insurance program – or finding ways to keep some enrolled – was put off Thursday until Aug. 13 by the board managing the program.

The Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board must come up with a plan to respond to deep cuts in California’s budget, including Healthy Families […]

Disenrolling children from Healthy Families “is something we do not relish doing,” said Cliff Allenby, the board’s chairman, as members listened to a number of speakers anticipating harm that will come from cutting so many children from insurance. Allenby said the board “may have no choice,” but is looking at ways to restructure the program to reduce costs and raise money for premiums from other sources.

Among the options under consideration: eliminating vision benefits, increasing co-pays and changing reimbursement schedules.

First Five committed to help with some money, but failed to delineate the amount.

I know one way to instantly restore $50 million in funding for poor children – by overriding Arnold’s possibly illegal vetoes.