In the least surprising state news of the past decade, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that California will face a deficit of $12.4 billion to $14.4 billion when he releases his budget plan in January 2010.  In Capitol-speak, this means that by July (or August or September) when Legislators finally mosey down to the chambers to vote on the next terrible budget, the deficit will probably be in the $15 billion + range.

How did this all happen?  As Paul Cook has mentioned on several occasions over the past year, the Governor’s office (in particular the Department of Finance) never ceases to issue rosy tax revenue projections during the previous budget negotiations.  Lo and behold, the state is “$1 billion behind in tax revenues through the first three months of the 2009-10 fiscal year.”  

We know, we know … how could any one have guessed that the economy wouldn’t have recovered by now!?  Hell, Obama only dumped the fortunes of several generations into the economy, in the form “bailouts” and “stimulus.”  Well, anyone living in reality could have guessed it.

Until the Capitol embraces the truly terrible California budget structural and is brave enough to tell the public the truth about revenues, we’ll keep fumbling along, following the same pattern: deficit, gridlock, rosy projections for the next year, repeat.

Read more about it here:

http://is.gd/4RY6g

Everyone recognizes the devastating effect of fires and the incredible effort by firefighters who risk their lives to save our families, homes, pets, and valuables. We have new wild fires ravaging the states, so the Governor took this opportunity to … (drum roll please) … push for new taxes. Where does this guy stand on taxes?

To be clear, Paul Cook has always been supportive of firefighters and efforts to improve fire response. In an Oak Glen press conference, the Governor made these three assertions (JPCblog grading in italics):

1. The budget the Legislature sent to him was not balanced. Correct!
2. He made the budget balanced by making additional cuts. These cuts provided the money to fight these fires. Partial credit. The first assertion is true; we need more evidence on the second part.
3. Legislature should pass the Emergency Response Initiative, which would make $100 million available to fight fires throughout California. Well …
   

Were you one of 759,000 people laid off this past fiscal year in the private sector? Are you a member of a public employees union angry at the world over furloughs? Know that while you were getting the proverbial shaft, California government added 3,600 employees over a 12-month period ending in June. The Mercury News reports on it here:

http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_12989171

The State Department of Personnel claims that many jobs were added in the University of California and California State University systems, which is interesting because the UC and CSU have been busy cutting enrollment, raising tuition, and handing out furloughs like furniture-store flyers. Hey, it takes staff to eliminate educational opportunities, right? Right?

Why aren't the public employee unions up in arms over these hires? They should spend less time staging phony protests at Cook's office and more time keeping the size of government down, which paradoxically, would help the existing membership.

If you really need a job, know that "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has requested that the EDD [California Employment Development Department] hire about 1,500 people in the coming year to handle increased unemployment claims." As one of these 1,500 employees, you too can be the costly human face of government, where a computerized system would suffice. You can also direct people to nonexistent job listings, reminding them that having one of the highest tax burdens in the nation guarantees our state will be among the slowest to recover from the recession.

For those unfamiliar, the AP caption for this picture is as follows:

California State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, both Democrats, celebrate in Steinberg's office Monday after reaching a budget agreement with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican leaders.

But that can’t be correct.  This is a terrible budget for everyone.  Democrats didn’t get their beloved tax increases.  Republicans won’t see much elimination of government (the “cuts” in the budget are mostly “one-time budget reductions” for various state entities).

As your loyal servant, JPC Blog must speculate about what’s going on in this picture.  Here are the top 5 guesses:

1. Dancing to “Celebration” by Kool and the Gang. Arnold has an extensive Kool and the Gang 8-track collection and insists upon a morning workout.
2. Stretching after waking from a half-decade-long nap, during which, California circled the proverbial toilet.
3. Successful test of new Budget Deodorant, formulated to mask the stink and sweat of budgetary gymnastics.
4. Prisoners pre-release party.
5. Checked the ticker … California ’s economy is up! No, wait, that’s just the unemployment rate.

Feel free to add your own. 

The title isn’t hyperbole.  With California’s lenient CalWORKs program, you can remain on welfare for up to 18 years.  The Sacramento Bee has a nice article on our expansive system.  But don’t take our word for it:

"Technically, you could be on (welfare) aid for 18 years," said John Wagner, director of the state's Department of Social Services [DSS]. "With our current system, an adult could either work 130 hours or face $139 in sanctions. That's very little incentive to participate in activities, including work, that lead to a family's self-sufficiency."

Yes, that’s the director of DSS speaking. When even Mr. Wagner points out the ridiculousness of a system his department administers, you know something is amiss.  Work 130 hours or pay a fine of roughly one dollar per hour for not working? Hmm … Tough choice for the unmotivated.  Perhaps they should change the slogan from “Welfare to Work” to “Welfare not Work.”

Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors of California (CWDC), claims CalWORKs has been "one of the most successful programs the state has had in the past decade."  Now, Frank is a respectable guy.  In fact, his organization supports Paul Cook’s landmark Native American Adoption bill.  But he’s ignoring the numbers (not to mention California’s budget problem).  And asking the CWDC if welfare works is a bit like asking a chef if the food is good. 

How many of you live in communities where you struggle to make ends meet, but some welfare recipients drive better cars, have better clothes, and, much to their delight, have a hell of a lot more free time than you?

Admittedly, California’s system allows the children to stay on welfare, even if the parent violates the rules of CalWORKs (which, eventually, in a roundabout way, asks you very nicely to please find a job).  Theoretically, that’s a good thing (though we’re one of only six states to offer such a generous benefit).  On paper, it means that while California has just 12 percent of the nation’s population, it has 30 percent of the welfare recipients.  At home, it means that the state needs more of your tax dollars.  And when it gets those dollars, they might be handed to someone well into his or her second decade on welfare.  Meanwhile, your roads crumble.

Drink up the socialism folks.  Is it any wonder California is often the slowest to recover from recession?

-JPCstaff

Last week, the CSEA (CA State Employees Association) staged a protest at Assemblyman Cook's District Office in Yucaipa.  Key word "staged."  There's a video of their efforts on youtube, but we won't further their nonsense by linking it.

One of the CSEA's crack organizers claims, on video, that Cook was "hiding" from protestors. Hey, what a great soundbyte! Cook hides from protestors! Except it was Wednesday July 8. Even Cook's grandkids could probably tell you that he's in the State Capitol from Monday through Thursday on most weeks (including the week of the protest). Perhaps the CSEA should check with their expert legislative committee, or visit the official Assembly web page during non-work hours, to figure out the Assembly's schedule. More likely, the head mouthpiece was lying to rile up the crowd. (And according to District Office staffers, the CSEA knew Cook wasn't there.)

The protestors also shouted "Teach 'em or jail 'em!" Does anyone even know what that means? Jail the kids? For the record, as a professor at public universities, Cook was often frustrated by budget cuts or the occasional student, but he never wanted to jail his pupils. Call him a bleeding heart.

Cook was up in Sacramento doing his job that Wednesday, such as working on his legislation to help improve IHSS for seniors and disabled persons. All of this begs the question, shouldn't these protestors be at work? If the CSEA members have all of this time to spare for protests and money to spend on mailers going out to 40,000 of Cook's constituents, maybe the budget cuts aren't as harmful as they purport.

Everyone has a right to protest, including the CSEA. But let's be accurate and avoid lies when you're assailing someone, all in the name of your union.

- JPCstaff