OT: Schwarzenegger proposes the complete elimination of all state welfare programs

User Forum Topic
Submitted by partypup on May 23, 2009 - 2:27am

Wow.

If existing welfare programs were only reduced by half, we'd have a nightmare on our hands. That our governor is even considering the total elimination of these programs is enough to make me accelerate my timeframe for checking out of CA. If unemployment swells as welfare services are severely reduced, I can't imagine what the streets are going to look like. Who will feel safe in their homes?

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to completely eliminate the state’s welfare program for families, medical insurance for low-income children and Cal Grants cash assistance to college and university students.

The proposals to sharply scale back the assistance that California provides to its neediest residents came in testimony by the administration this afternoon at a joint legislative budget committee hearing. It followed comments by the governor earlier today that he would be withdrawing a proposal to help balance the budget with billions of dollars of borrowing and replacing it with program reductions.

The proposals would completely reshape the state’s social service network, transforming California from one of the country’s most generous states to one of the most tightfisted. The proposals are intended to help close a budget deficit estimated at $21.3 billion."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...

Submitted by no_such_reality on May 23, 2009 - 7:19am.

Welcome to the State of Fear.

The politicians will make the cuts in the most painful spots to the paying public.

Instead of eliminating burueacracy, they slash teachers.

Instead of addressing out of control pensions, they threatening to cut firefighters.

Instead of tackling the $3.3Billion in fraud in MediCal, they slash programs.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 23, 2009 - 8:50am.

Hey, partypup, when he burns the Reichstag, then I'd get worried.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on May 23, 2009 - 9:05am.

He should ship the illegals to Washington. That would help balance the budget. How did we exist without them before? How did families live without welfare? Each took care of their own. The budget needs to be balanced and you cannot just balance it on the back of the workers. Eventually they will leave the State as will small business. Kalifornia has become inhospitable to both. Time for a fresh start. Arnold should do what he promised to do when he ran for Governor and quit trying to build alliances and appease everyone.

Submitted by ocrenter on May 23, 2009 - 9:27am.

CA Budget breakdown

this is not about scare tactic. look at where most of the budget ends up, 30% is welfare and medi-Cal and 40% is education. that's 70% of the budget. there's a lot of waste in both fields. there's a lot of folks living off the state either by exaggerating disability or in job-for-life programs protected by various unions.

whenever politicians talk about cuts, pictures of children who can't afford their medication are paraded around. politicians back down and start borrowing or tax the productive citizens.

the voters have spoken, we don't want more debt, if we can't pay for it, then we can't pay for it.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on May 23, 2009 - 9:35am.

Good post-
"Posted by: the Graduate|May 22, 2009 at 05:04 PM

1. People on welfare should not have kids. People without welfare with kids will be a good example for future poor people thinking about having kids.

2. After drastic cuts to welfare the remaining pepole who get welfare should have to do community service or give up benefits.

3. The college system is fried. Those grants that pay for students are increasing the cost of education. Students who cannot pay for college will have to wait it out at Community Colleges or go to Tech School and learn a valuable trade. Students working 5 jobs should go to a school they can afford.

4. Illegals don't deserve anything here. Be real. If you want them to get health care or food then take them to your own doctor or restaurant and pay for them.

5. Fiscal restraint people. Not everybody making a living should have a 2 car garage.

6. People who made too much money and spent it all should never be bailed out. Includes underwater homeowners, college students, banks, etc."

Submitted by Veritas on May 23, 2009 - 10:05am.

Partypup- It might be a bluff to get the Feds to bail out the State. Either way the Governator wins. It is actually a smart move. Maybe the recipients will move or self- deport.

Submitted by peterb on May 23, 2009 - 10:17am.

It will be interesting to see if the welfare is really cut or not. And what ramifications would come from it? Perhaps a rise in the crime rate? Who knows. CA does not have a sustainable game plan, so it must be changed. People could leave, but where would they go?
It may be a very wise strategy to stay very flexible in these uncertain times. Life in CA may become very nasty for a while.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 23, 2009 - 10:19am.

Veritas: Self-deport. I like it. The fact is, as a state and a nation, we've gotten used to not having to make hard decisions and not having to sacrifice.

Now, the bill has come due and we're facing hard decisions and sacrifice and no one wants to hear this or be forced to do what is necessary.

This is wrenching change and it's going to happen whether we want it or not.

Submitted by equalizer on May 23, 2009 - 10:21am.

thank tg, the gov is listening.
who predicted that guns and ammo would be best asset class this year. better run to the store before they run out. secuity system sales may be good temp job for jobless.

Submitted by davelj on May 23, 2009 - 10:27am.

peterb wrote:
It will be interesting to see if the welfare is really cut or not. And what ramifications would come from it? Perhaps a rise in the crime rate? Who knows. CA does not have a sustainable game plan, so it must be changed. People could leave, but where would they go?
It may be a very wise strategy to stay very flexible in these uncertain times. Life in CA may become very nasty for a while.

"Perhaps a rise in the crime rate?" I don't know about this. I'm betting there are cities all over Mexico - just to use our neighbor to the south as an example - where the population is far poorer than San Diego's - even adjusting for welfare cuts - that don't have the sort of crime problems you're envisioning. Sure, there might be some modest uptick, but I don't foresee a Death Wish scenario where I can't walk outside without four folks trying to mug me in four separate incidences over two hours (man, that guy was unlucky).

Submitted by equalizer on May 23, 2009 - 10:29am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
Veritas: Self-deport. I like it. The fact is, as a state and a nation, we've gotten used to not having to make hard decisions and not having to sacrifice.

Now, the bill has come due and we're facing hard decisions and sacrifice and no one wants to hear this or be forced to do what is necessary.

This is wrenching change and it's going to happen whether we want it or not.


back to housing, studies show that a home can be an albatross that prevents people from moving to other locales with "better" opportunities. cant sell, cant move. once again tax policy ruins the day.

Submitted by equalizer on May 23, 2009 - 10:37am.

davelj wrote:
peterb wrote:
It will be interesting to see if the welfare is really cut or not. And what ramifications would come from it? Perhaps a rise in the crime rate? Who knows. CA does not have a sustainable game plan, so it must be changed. People could leave, but where would they go?
It may be a very wise strategy to stay very flexible in these uncertain times. Life in CA may become very nasty for a while.

"Perhaps a rise in the crime rate?" I don't know about this. I'm betting there are cities all over Mexico - just to use our neighbor to the south as an example - where the population is far poorer than San Diego's - even adjusting for welfare cuts - that don't have the sort of crime problems you're envisioning. Sure, there might be some modest uptick, but I don't foresee a Death Wish scenario where I can't walk outside without four folks trying to mug me in four separate incidences over two hours (man, that guy was unlucky).


have you gone to the other states? because police, fire, and teacher salaries are lower in other states, crime is rampant, cities are burning and colleges are closing. thats another reason everyone wants to live in ca.

Submitted by peterb on May 23, 2009 - 10:53am.

Dont look now, but I think Mexico is in somewhat of a civil war. At least by violent death standards.
Yes, and in states without immigrants, of any legal status, nothing gets done that pays less than $10/hour. (sarcastic remark)

Submitted by Veritas on May 23, 2009 - 10:54am.

The best and the worst States for taxes:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Tax...

Submitted by davelj on May 23, 2009 - 11:13am.

peterb wrote:
Dont look now, but I think Mexico is in somewhat of a civil war. At least by violent death standards.
Yes, and in states without immigrants, of any legal status, nothing gets done that pays less than $10/hour. (sarcastic remark)

Mexico's "civil war" relates to drug policy, not poverty. (Although, admittedly, one could argue that fewer folks would pursue selling drugs for a living if there were more opportunity. But that's not the crux of this discussion.) If the USA either (1) didn't demand so many drugs, or (2) didn't put its boot on the neck of Mexico's government to solve what is, essentially, a problem of our own making... then Mexico would be a hell of a lot more peaceful than it is. If we want to see the root of most of Mexico's crime problems, then we can just look in the mirror.

Submitted by 4plexowner on May 23, 2009 - 11:16am.

"I don't know about this. I'm betting there are cities all over Mexico - just to use our neighbor to the south as an example - where the population is far poorer than San Diego's - even adjusting for welfare cuts - that don't have the sort of crime problems you're envisioning"

one of the things that surprises me about Mexico is seeing walled estates where the walls are seriously intended to keep people OUT - broken glass embedded in the top of a wall is sort of pretty from a distance but not much fun to climb over I would imagine - barbed wire is also used

is crime low because of a lack of criminals or a lack of opportunity?

tourist guides in Mexico talk about roaming bandits in different parts of the country but that may just be part of their shtick

the old saying, "fences make for good neighbors", comes to mind

which brings up, "an armed society is a polite society"

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 23, 2009 - 11:35am.

peterb wrote:
Dont look now, but I think Mexico is in somewhat of a civil war. At least by violent death standards.
Yes, and in states without immigrants, of any legal status, nothing gets done that pays less than $10/hour. (sarcastic remark)

Peter: Mexico is not in a civil war. They've had an active insurgency movement in some of their southern provinces (the Zapatistas) for some years now (when I was in the Army in the 1980s we trained Mexican Army officers for counterinsurgency operations), but the violence you're seeing right now is a result of an on-going drug war between rival factions for control of distribution routes and territories.

Submitted by davelj on May 23, 2009 - 11:40am.

4plexowner wrote:
"I don't know about this. I'm betting there are cities all over Mexico - just to use our neighbor to the south as an example - where the population is far poorer than San Diego's - even adjusting for welfare cuts - that don't have the sort of crime problems you're envisioning"

one of the things that surprises me about Mexico is seeing walled estates where the walls are seriously intended to keep people OUT - broken glass embedded in the top of a wall is sort of pretty from a distance but not much fun to climb over I would imagine - barbed wire is also used

is crime low because of a lack of criminals or a lack of opportunity?

tourist guides in Mexico talk about roaming bandits in different parts of the country but that may just be part of their shtick

the old saying, "fences make for good neighbors", comes to mind

which brings up, "an armed society is a polite society"

To preface, I've seen a lot of Mexico. I'm a partner in two businesses there, one in Aguascalientes and another in Torreon. So, while not an expert, I've spent a lot of time in different parts of Mexico.

I can't speak to the crime statistics down there because I don't track them and they're probably not as reliable as those we keep here.

But, generically, 90% of the crime problems we read about are drug related. I have no idea what the rate of "petty crime" is. But I've never felt threatened in Mexico. Ever. And I've been in some sketchy parts of various cities and towns.

But I do think petty crime is at least as much of a problem in the big cities and border cities (the DF, Tijuana, Juarez, Monterrey, etc.) as it is here in the US. Perhaps more so. But I've never gotten the impression that crime was a huge problem (well, any more so than here) in most of the cities and towns in Mexico. And clearly these folks are much poorer than we are on average.

Regarding roaming bandits, yeah, I'm sure there are roaming bandits. That wouldn't surprise me at all. But I don't think that's the norm.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 23, 2009 - 11:49am.

davelj wrote:
4plexowner wrote:
"I don't know about this. I'm betting there are cities all over Mexico - just to use our neighbor to the south as an example - where the population is far poorer than San Diego's - even adjusting for welfare cuts - that don't have the sort of crime problems you're envisioning"

one of the things that surprises me about Mexico is seeing walled estates where the walls are seriously intended to keep people OUT - broken glass embedded in the top of a wall is sort of pretty from a distance but not much fun to climb over I would imagine - barbed wire is also used

is crime low because of a lack of criminals or a lack of opportunity?

tourist guides in Mexico talk about roaming bandits in different parts of the country but that may just be part of their shtick

the old saying, "fences make for good neighbors", comes to mind

which brings up, "an armed society is a polite society"

To preface, I've seen a lot of Mexico. I'm a partner in two businesses there, one in Aguascalientes and another in Torreon. So, while not an expert, I've spent a lot of time in different parts of Mexico.

I can't speak to the crime statistics down there because I don't track them and they're probably not as reliable as those we keep here.

But, generically, 90% of the crime problems we read about are drug related. I have no idea what the rate of "petty crime" is. But I've never felt threatened in Mexico. Ever. And I've been in some sketchy parts of various cities and towns.

But I do think petty crime is at least as much of a problem in the big cities and border cities (the DF, Tijuana, Juarez, Monterrey, etc.) as it is here in the US. Perhaps more so. But I've never gotten the impression that crime was a huge problem (well, any more so than here) in most of the cities and towns in Mexico. And clearly these folks are much poorer than we are on average.

Regarding roaming bandits, yeah, I'm sure there are roaming bandits. That wouldn't surprise me at all. But I don't think that's the norm.

Dave: Most people that opine about Mexico do so from ignorance. I spent three years in Central America in the 1980s and I can tell you that the level of violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador during those years was unbelievable, especially in comparison to countries like Costa Rica and Mexico.

Mexico, while horribly corrupt and badly mismanaged, is a fairly safe country and the people are wonderful. I spent quite a bit of time there in the southern provinces, specifically Chiapas and Guerrero, and in spite of the insurgency and political tension, was very well treated by the average citizens. These people were dirt poor, mistreated by the government and subjected to awful privations and yet were generous, decent and law-abiding, so I'm not worried that California will turn into "Soylent Green" overnight.

Submitted by Arraya on May 23, 2009 - 12:07pm.

Illegal narcotics is over a half trillion dollar a year industry. Most of the cash(90%) winds up in western banks and the stock market. The US loves the drug trade. It is a major contributor to keeping the system going.

Mexico's number one export, oil, from Cantarell is falling fast, like 18% a year. Soon not to be an export. I would not expect mexico or the US to crack down on drugs anytime soon. Though, I would expect the gov to crack down on where the money goes.

Submitted by afx114 on May 23, 2009 - 12:13pm.

When most people think of Mexico they think it all looks and acts like Tijuana. What they don't realize is than in many ways Tijuana is sort of a nation unto itself -- with no citizens. As a border town with a one-way spigot, most people there are "just passing through." They have no ties to the city and don't see themselves as staying there permanently, so there is no sense of pride or community. No city can thrive without those two things. Tijuana is the cheap motel on the side of a long highway that you stay in to get a good nights sleep before moving on to the next stop. It is not representative of the country as a whole.

It really is a shame that for most people on this side of the border, Tijuana is Mexico, because the country is full of beauty -- both natural and man-made -- that is not represented by Tijuana and that Americans would do good to experience for themselves.

This message is brought to you buy the Mexican Board of Tourism.

Submitted by davelj on May 23, 2009 - 12:24pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:

Dave: Most people that opine about Mexico do so from ignorance. I spent three years in Central America in the 1980s and I can tell you that the level of violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador during those years was unbelievable, especially in comparison to countries like Costa Rica and Mexico.

Mexico, while horribly corrupt and badly mismanaged, is a fairly safe country and the people are wonderful. I spent quite a bit of time there in the southern provinces, specifically Chiapas and Guerrero, and in spite of the insurgency and political tension, was very well treated by the average citizens. These people were dirt poor, mistreated by the government and subjected to awful privations and yet were generous, decent and law-abiding, so I'm not worried that California will turn into "Soylent Green" overnight.

Indeed, I also remain unconcerned. My girlfriend is from Guadalajara and grew up in Tijuana and still has lots of family there, so I'm down there on a very regular basis. Friends say to me, "Don't you read the news - it's like the wild west down there. Aren't you worried?" I answer, "No. I have no connection to the drug trade. And I've never felt the least bit threatened down there. Nor am I concerned about catching the fucking flu."

Mira, tu sabes que es el problema: es que gente aqui en los EEUU se miran las noticias en la television sobre los problemas y la violencia (con los narcos) en Mexico y se piensan que el pais es peligroso para todo. Pero esta gente no se viajan and no sabe nada sobre Mexico o otras partes del mundo porque viajando es demasiado trabajo. Es mas facil para tener opiniones sin conocimiento o experiencia.

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on May 23, 2009 - 1:00pm.

davelj wrote:

Mira, tu sabes que es el problema: es que gente aqui en los EEUU se miran las noticias en la television sobre los problemas y la violencia (con los narcos) en Mexico y se piensan que el pais es peligroso para todo. Pero esta gente no se viajan and no sabe nada sobre Mexico o otras partes del mundo porque viajando es demasiado trabajo. Es mas facil para tener opiniones sin conocimiento o experiencia.

Dave: Which was exactly my point. It's opinion based on ignorance and the 11:00 PM News.

It's funny, I used to travel back and forth between Florida (Fort MacDill/Eglin AFB) and Central America in the mid-1980s (1984 - 1988). I would catch up on the news when in Florida and, back in those days, it wasn't uncommon to see news footage out of Miami featuring Metro-Dade PD and the DEA shooting it out in the middle of some Miami neighborhood with Colombia drug gang members.

Print and electronic media were breathlessly reporting a return to the Wild West and how Colombian narcotrafficantes and Jamaican "posses" were overrunning American cities from NYC to Detroit. Crack cocaine was an "epidemic" that was engulfing our schools and America would be finished as a country by Christmas.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Whether it's Swine Flu in the '70s or now, Japan, Inc in the '80s or China now, or whatever War on Drugs crisis du jour happens to catch the MSM's fancy, it's the same old shit, different day.

Submitted by peterb on May 23, 2009 - 1:08pm.

Any entity that can take on the local and federal authorities for power is a threat the their ultimate control. That's what a civil war is. I dont care what label you'd like to put on it. 6 or 7 thousand people being killed in violent conflict is a major standard of calculation for civil wars within a given country. It's armed conflict for control of something within the country. I would not call this safe, nor a place I'd like to live in. I spent many months in different parts of Mexico. Great natural beauty, but horribly mismanaged.

Submitted by Veritas on May 23, 2009 - 1:19pm.

"A record-breaking 5,612 people were executed in Mexico’s drug war in 2008, making the drug war more deadly than the drugs."

"Mexico's daily El Universal, which began counting drug war executions four years ago, reports that 5,612 people were executed in Mexico’s drug war in 2008. This year’s deaths more than doubled 2007’s total of over 2,700 executions. By El Universal's estimates, about 8,463 drug executions have occurred during the first two years of Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s six-year term in office. Calderon deployed the army and federal police to combat drug cartels almost immediately upon assuming office in December 2006."

Submitted by patientrenter on May 23, 2009 - 1:26pm.

Planned outcome for California state budget:

1. Federal bail-out (both current and future, through bond repayment guarantees; and direct and indirect, through inflation)

2. Increase in CA state taxes (and fees etc) in the present and also the future, through more state borrowing

3. Small spending cuts designed to maximize public pain and scare the public into choosing more taxes instead. [Release criminals before cutting state pensions etc.]

I apologize that this is a near-repeat of an earlier post I made, but the question never dies, even though we know the answer, and it never changes.

The latest proposal from the governor is obviously just one more note in the carefully orchestrated campaign to limit spending cuts. No one in govt really wants to cut govt spending by a large amount, like 25-40%.

Submitted by jpinpb on May 23, 2009 - 4:56pm.

If I were someone that relied on welfare to survive in California and that welfare was completely eliminated at a time when the economy is not the best and unemployment is in double digits, I would seriously be looking to move to another state that does provide welfare. That is an easy decision.

I am not versed in the states that provide welfare benefits and it would not shock me if California was one of the best states for welfare, but I'm certain there are other states that are generous in that regard.

Submitted by SD Realtor on May 23, 2009 - 10:39pm.

This will never happen.

It is a great idea but it will never happen. Arnie is gonna sell our states rights to the devil and get Obama to bail us out.

Anyone willing to take any bets?

****************

The bottom line is that the state is broken. It does not work. The state legislature is filled with idiots and the governator makes Grey Davis look like a genius.

You cannot spend more then you take in. Period. The solution is not to raise taxes. The solution is to cut spending. Those of us who do not like it, we can leave. Seems like other states in the union can balance a budget. Sorry but the only way to learn how to live within our means is to actually STOP SPENDING WHAT WE DONT HAVE.

Submitted by sd_matt on May 23, 2009 - 10:47pm.

Currently Tecate is quieter than Tijuana.

Submitted by partypup on May 23, 2009 - 11:37pm.

Veritas wrote:
Partypup- It might be a bluff to get the Feds to bail out the State. Either way the Governator wins. It is actually a smart move. Maybe the recipients will move or self- deport.

You know, Veritas, I've been wondering about the likelihood of a fed baillout to the states. Today on CSPAN Obama said two (2) things that stood out to me: first, he admitted point-bank "We're out of money now" and second, he indicated that states would not be bailed out, but would instead be forced to slash costs as necessary:

SCULLY: States like California in desperate financial situation, will you be forced to bail out the states?

OBAMA: No. I think that what you're seeing in states is that anytime you got a severe recession like this, as I said before, their demands on services are higher. So, they are sending more money out. At the same time, they're bringing less tax revenue in. And that's a painful adjustment, what we're going end up seeing is lot of states making very difficult choices there...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.