Hitler's birthplace withdraws honor

Share

The Associated Press

Published: Friday, Jul. 8, 2011 - 6:42 am

BRAUNAU, Austria -- Adolf Hitler is now formally persona non grata in the town of his birth.
The town council in the Austrian village of Braunau has unanimously decided to withdraw honorary citizenship from the community's most infamous son, 78 years after the Nazi dictator was given the title.
Hitler was actually born in the tiny village of Ranshofen, next to Braunau and became an honorary citizen of that hamlet in 1933. But Ranshofen became part of Braunau a few years later and thus is universally recognized as Hitler's birthplace.
Braunau historians say they aren't sure if the title was transferable from Ranshofen to Braunau. But the town council decided to abolish it late Thursday - just in case.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/08/3756027/hitlers-birthplace-withdraws-honor.html#ixzz1Rkzew5xS

April 27, 2011

Florida Legislature Nears Medicaid Overhaul Vote

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

DAVIE, Fla. — A crucial experiment in the future of Medicaid is playing out in Florida, where both houses of the Legislature are vying to find ways to drastically cut costs, manage care and reduce waste and fraud.

The cuts and changes being sought by the Republican-led Legislature and encouraged by the new Republican governor, Rick Scott, a wealthy former hospital company executive, are deeper than those in many other states.

In the past 11 years, the cost of Medicaid in Florida has grown to $21 billion from $9 billion, which amounts to a third of the state budget. The federal government pays more than half the tab.

“There is a consensus that the Medicaid system is irretrievably broken,” said State Senator Joe Negron, a Republican who took the lead in writing the Senate bill, which is expected to come to a vote before the legislative session ends on May 6. The House approved its bill this month. The changes could go into effect as early as next year. “I’ve never seen something where we are spending $21 billion and nobody is happy. We were not going to kick the can down the road another year.”

Relying loosely on a five-year-old pilot program to shift care to H.M.O.’s, Florida lawmakers are poised to scrap the traditional model in which the state pays doctors for each service they perform. Instead, almost all of Florida’s Medicaid recipients would be funneled into state-authorized, for-profit H.M.O.’s or networks run by hospitals or doctors. H.M.O.’s or networks would also manage the long-term care of the elderly, shifting them away from nursing homes and expanding in-home care. Lawmakers who support the bill say the state needs this flexibility in curtailing the exploding cost of Medicaid.

The legislation in Florida is being closely watched by other states as they tackle the rapid growth of enrollment and the cost of care. Because Florida has three million Medicaid patients and a high rate of uninsured people, a swift jump into managed care would be significant. And while many states use managed care for Medicaid users in one form or other, the Florida proposals stand out because they would set possible limits on services, giving the state and H.M.O.’s the right to deny some benefits now offered to patients. This would require federal permission.

“If Florida adopts this method of looking at managed care, other states will definitely look at that, and this is a tool we can use,” said Michael W. Garner, the president of the Florida Association of Health Plans, which lobbies for H.M.O.’s. “The toolbox is pretty empty right now.”

But there is concern across the state that the emerging proposals could not only reduce available health care for millions, but also leave the most vulnerable — the disabled, the elderly and those with serious chronic illness — at risk. An April study of the pilot program by Georgetown University raised doubts about patient services and cost efficiency, saying there was too little data. For some, the proposals hold a fearful prospect.

Vicki Ahern, 40, a single mother in Davie who is her son’s full-time caregiver, spent several years trying to cobble together a network of specialists and physical therapists across several counties to help Keith, 16, grapple with his muscular dystrophy, spinal injuries and debilitating pain.

Then, suddenly, the network crumbled. With 10 days’ notice, Ms. Ahern said, Keith was shuttled into the H.M.O. pilot project, which transferred Medicaid patients in five counties to H.M.O.’s and hospital- or doctor-run networks. The counties are Baker, Clay, Duval and Nassau, in the northeast; and Broward, in the south.

The participating H.M.O.’s in Broward County, where the Aherns live, listed none of Keith’s doctors or therapists; they offered few specialists and fewer services. The one rheumatologist who proved helpful dropped out of the program because of low reimbursement rates and a frustrating bureaucracy.

“I started panicking and considered moving out of state, but we couldn’t,” Ms. Ahern said. “I was very angry because I knew he wasn’t going to get his services. If you have a chronic disability or are medically fragile, then forget it.”

After several months in the pilot program, Ms. Ahern discovered she could opt out — a long bureaucratic process — and she did.

The two bills now in play in Tallahassee — one written in the House, the other in the Senate — are modeled in large part on the pilot program. The pilot program allowed the state to provide a set amount of money for managed-care companies to more efficiently serve each Medicaid patient, which include low-income children and pregnant women, the developmentally disabled and others.

The bills vary: the House version would send the developmentally disabled to managed care; the Senate’s would not. The Senate is pushing block grants, which would restrict financing even further by creating a cap that locks in the Medicaid budget each year; the House version does not.

All of these proposed changes worry health care advocates and Medicaid patients, who say that the for-profit nature of H.M.O.’s makes it difficult to care for the neediest.

The pilot program appears to have been far from successful, according to the Georgetown report: H.M.O.’s fled the program because of low reimbursement rates. Among those leaving was WellCare, which left 55 percent of Duval County’s Medicaid patients in limbo. The company was later accused of cherry-picking Medicaid patients to maximize profits, and five of its former executives were indicted on fraud charges.

Patients were shuffled from H.M.O. to H.M.O., and reported difficulty accessing some services. In other cases, doctors listed in the network stopped accepting Medicaid patients. Supporters of the bills say that the rates would be adjusted to increase H.M.O. participation and that oversight would be bolstered.

Lawmakers are also planning steep budget cuts in the Medicaid program to tackle the state’s yawning deficits. This would make the shift even more burdensome, Democrats say.

“It can’t work,” said Representative Elaine J. Schwartz, a Democrat, who held town-hall-style meetings on the program in Broward County. “It undermines the basic purpose of Medicaid, which is to provide services. If the private sector could have made money on Medicaid, they would have. With this plan, we are basically handing them $20 billion. Two groups of people will suffer: The patients because they are bamboozled and the taxpayer who is not getting their money’s worth.”

Joan Alker, the co-executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown who co-wrote the April report on the pilot program, said that so far there was no solid evidence of how much the pilot program had saved or whether the savings came from denying patients services. Florida pays among the lowest rates in the country for each Medicaid patient, ranking 43rd in the nation, making Medicaid less expensive than private insurance, Ms. Alker said.

Mr. Negron said he envisioned $1 billion in savings from his proposal in its first year and perhaps $4 billion in subsequent years.

“One of my guiding principles,” he said, “is that our friends and neighbors on Medicaid should not receive fewer benefits than their counterparts, but they shouldn’t have a more generous benefit either.”

Indiana: IBM welfare intake work flawed from start

Associated Press

July 21, 2010

Related News and Opinion

• Indiana Medicaid cuts likely to be followed by more

• Daniels appoints new social services chief

• Indiana child care agencies protest cost of new rules

• Estimate puts Indiana health overhaul costs at $3.1B

• Indiana accused of cutting aid to food stamp users

In Depth

• SPECIAL REPORT: Indiana companies charge into China

• Partisan divide could threaten long-term education reform

• Charter school's nimble approach could become the norm
  

Indiana's human services agency says it found problems with IBM Corp.'s takeover of welfare intake services early in the project and suggested delays, but yielded to the company's wishes to expand the project.

IBM, meanwhile, claims the Family and Social Services Administration seized more than $9 million worth of its computers, servers and office furniture without paying for them after Gov. Mitch Daniels fired the technology giant last year.

The counter charges are included in filings rebutting and denying claims in the former partners' lawsuits against each other in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis. The state agency is suing IBM for more than $1.3 billion, claiming the Armonk, N.Y.-based company breached one of the biggest outsourcing deals in state history. IBM wants the state to pay $52.8 million it says it's owed in deferred payments and equipment costs.

The two sides sued each other May 13 over IBM's canceled $1.37 billion contract to automate intake for Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits received by more than a million Indiana children, seniors, elderly and disabled residents.

In its July 14 response to IBM's lawsuit, the state says the social services agency began to observe problems with IBM's performance soon after the project's initial rollout to 10 northern Indiana counties on Oct. 29, 2007, and an expansion to the project's second region was delayed and eventually split into smaller segments.

"FSSA suggested delaying further rollouts until the performance outages could be cured; however, IBM assured FSSA that if the Region 2 rollout was implemented, IBM would recognize some efficiencies and economies of scale that would improve performance. Accordingly, FSSA agreed to the rollout of Region 2," the state's lawyers wrote.

The filing appears to contradict statements public officials made at the time, in which they expressed satisfaction with the project.

Then-FSSA Secretary Mitch Roob told The Associated Press on March 16, 2008 — eight days before the expansion to 27 more counties — that "we're going to get this right and we're not going to do it fast. ... We have to do it with great care."

In the court filing, the state says public statements by Roob and Daniels praising IBM's work were "an effort to be professional and help the Modernization effort succeed ... rather than dwell on its continued shortcomings."

IBM spokesman Clint Roswell challenged that explanation.

"You can't have it both ways. You can't say two things. Which one is the real one?" Roswell told the AP.

FSSA spokesman Marcus Barlow issued a statement saying, "IBM did not live up to its contract promises, despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars, the encouragement and cooperation of State officials, and numerous opportunities to correct its mistakes."

The project had grown to 59 of the state's 92 counties by May 19, 2008. Three weeks later, flash floods swept through central and southern Indiana, putting any further expansions on hold while the FSSA focused on flood relief including emergency food stamps to affected residents. That created more work for IBM's team of vendors, as did the economic downturn, the court filings say.

Under the contract, "IBM assumed the risk of such natural disasters," the state said. However, the state paid IBM an additional $2 million for disaster relief. Eventually, Indiana paid IBM more than $437 million.

Roob moved on to an economic development position in the Daniels administration in January 2009, and new FSSA Secretary Anne Murphy halted any further rollouts and demanded a corrective action plan from IBM. That led to Daniels canceling IBM's contract in October, saying he wasn't satisfied nearly three years into the 10-year deal.

IBM's contract ended in December, but it did not finish up work until June 13, Roswell said.

It left behind $9.35 million in computer servers and workstations that it had purchased or leased and more than 1,000 desks, chairs and other furniture pieces that it claims the state has seized, continues to use in welfare processing, and owes the company for.

"The State admits that it obtained equipment formerly used by the IBM Coalition," the state said in its response. Barlow declined to elaborate on the matter.

Attorneys for the two sides were scheduled to meet Friday in a case management conference. IBM's attorneys were seeking a shorter timetable to resolve the case and have proposed it go to trial in less than a year, on July 1, 2011. The state's attorneys have proposed a Feb. 1, 2012, trial date.

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

IBM files court motion to depose Daniels, aide

INDIANAPOLIS

Gov. Mitch Daniels and his chief of staff were both deeply involved in Indiana's decision to outsource the automation of welfare intake, and they should provide depositions in lawsuits over IBM Corp.'s cancelled $1.37 billion contract in the project, a lawyer for the company argues in a brief filed this week in Marion Superior Court.

The brief filed Tuesday by IBM attorney Andrew Hull notes Daniels at one point told a state employee union representative that the decision to upgrade Indiana's welfare eligibility system would "be made by me and me alone" and that Daniels personally signed the contract with Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM.

It also contends Chief of Staff Earl Goode was directly involved in all stages of the project from its inception to, after Daniels fired IBM in October 2009, the creation of a hybrid system that uses both automated intake and more face-to-face contact between state case workers and clients.

"Both Governor Daniels and Mr. Goode were intimately involved in all stages of the project, including key events at issue in this lawsuit," Hull wrote in the brief.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Wednesday with a lawyer representing the state.

The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration is suing IBM for more than $1.3 billion, claiming the company breached one of the biggest outsourcing deals in state history. IBM wants the state to pay more than $50 million it says it's owed in deferred payments and equipment costs.

Attorneys for Daniels and FSSA requested a protective order earlier this month seeking to shield Daniels and Goode from having to provide depositions in the counter lawsuits. It said forcing them to testify would be "unnecessary and burdensome."

The state said a 150-year-old Indiana law shields Daniels from having to provide testimony, but IBM argues the law refers only to being served subpoenas and civil arrests.

It wasn't clear when the judge hearing the lawsuits, Marion Superior Court Judge David Dreyer, would rule on whether Daniels and Goode must provide depositions. He has scheduled a hearing in the case for April 15.

Dreyer ruled last week that the state needed to make available to IBM certain documents it argued were privileged, including e-mail messages from Daniels and other state employees.

Problems including dropped calls, long hold times and missing documents led Daniels to fire IBM as the lead contractor on the automation project.

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

Indiana accused of cutting aid to food stamp users

Associated Press

July 20, 2010

For at least a decade, potentially thousands of Indiana's neediest adults have seen some of their state aid payments slashed simply because they receive food stamps — a practice that advocates and legal experts say is a clear violation of federal law.

The policy has affected people with developmental disabilities who need financial help to live independently and who receive additional assistance to buy groceries. The issue apparently went unnoticed for years until this month, when the father of a severely autistic Indianapolis man challenged it in court.

"I've never heard of a state being confused about this before. The law is unambiguous," said Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

Under the current system, when the federal government raises food stamp amounts, Indiana officials reduce grocery allowances so a person's total food benefits do not exceed $200 a month.

But since 1964, federal law has barred states from counting food stamps as income or using them to reduce any other public benefits.

"It's clear as could be," said Dennis Frick, an attorney with Indiana Legal Services' Senior Law Project. "I think they got caught."

Both the Department of Agriculture, which administers food stamps, and federal Medicaid officials say they are reviewing the issue. Gov. Mitch Daniels said "it's worth having a look" at the practice in light of the lawsuit filed by the autistic man and his father.

Marcus Barlow, a spokesman for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, said agency attorneys do not believe federal law was broken when officials balanced food stamp payments against a state-run supplemental aid program.

Barlow said Indiana has counted food stamps as a "benefit," not as income, as opponents contend, since at least 2000.

"Receiving a benefit reduces their need," Barlow said. "If your need has been reduced, then you should reduce the supplemental program."

The state's philosophy is to use federal dollars first so that the state can stretch its own money, Barlow said.

"We stand behind our practice because we have a finite set of resources, and we have to make sure those resources are going to the most needy," he said.

But legal experts say courts have consistently upheld the law that says other assistance cannot be reduced because someone is receiving food stamps.

Welfare officials in other states said they were surprised Indiana would even try to count food stamps against other benefits.

"Frankly, we're shocked that anyone does," said Brad Deen, a spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Indiana's practice may have gone unnoticed by federal officials because the state's policy did not directly affect food stamp payments.

"When the law is misapplied, it usually is inside the food stamp program, not outside," said Ellen Vollinger, legal director for the Food Research and Action Center in Washington.

The practice is just the latest indictment of how Indiana handles services for its most vulnerable residents.

The federal government levied a $1.2 million penalty last month against the state's social service agency for miscalculating food stamp benefits.

The state also drew criticism from the Department of Agriculture in recent years for not processing food stamps in a timely manner as part of a project to privatize some welfare payment processing. That plan caused countless complaints that ultimately led the state in October to scrap a $1.3 billion contract with IBM in favor of a public-private hybrid system.

In another troubled project, the state tried to reduce payments made to foster parents by shifting many special-needs children into lower-paying categories — a move that outraged advocates.

In the most recent case, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Michael Dick, 26, who cannot speak and functions at the level of a 6-year-old.

Dick is enrolled in state programs that provide money to help the developmentally disabled live on their own, including buying groceries.

"You can't use food stamps when you're calculating an entitlement program, but this is a state-run supplemental program," Barlow said.

Michael Dick's father, Steven, said it's time for the state to follow the federal rules.

Steven Dick, an attorney, said his son's only income is a monthly $674 Social Security disability check. Michael lives in a small rented home with another disabled man and pays $350 a month in rent, not including utilities.

He said his son requires a 24-hour caretaker to help him bathe, dress or go anywhere.

"He's a happy child, but he functions as though he's a child," he said.

When his food stamp benefits were raised to as much as $99 a month, Michael Dick's grocery allowance was reduced from $139 to as low as $101.

Steven Dick said he and his son appealed the decision and lost, then decided to sue. The lawsuit was filed July 9 in Marion County Superior Court.

The $200 cap set by the state is arbitrary and has not been adjusted in at least six years, the lawsuit said.

"And $200 a month a decade ago bought a hell of a lot more groceries than it does today," Steven Dick said.

The number of people affected by the policy is not clear.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status for people enrolled in Indiana's Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Program and estimates thousands of people could be affected. The website of the state's social services agency says about 6,700 people were enrolled in that program as of May.

But Barlow said only about 440 people in that program receive the additional assistance involved, and not all of those get a food allowance.

Regardless of the number, Dick said, the state policy hurts those who often lack recourse.

"The problem this class of people face is they're in a position of either take it or do without as far as the state is concerned, and 90 percent of them don't have the wherewithal to fight the system," Steven Dick said. "They have no way of fighting for what should be a right for them."

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

Indiana Medicaid cuts likely to be followed by more

Associated Press

December 30, 2010

Indiana's Medicaid program will reduce dental and vision benefits for adults and cut payments to some providers beginning Saturday, and more cuts are likely in the coming months as the state struggles to control the burgeoning costs of the public health insurance plan.

The Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning has approved without comment a series of emergency rules that it expects to save a total of $4.1 million over the next six months, spokesman Marcus Barlow said.

But that will make up for only a small portion of the $31.4 million shortfall the agency anticipates for the fiscal year that ends June 30.

"This is just one round. We expect more changes in the future," Barlow said. Advocates said the rule changes, including prior authorizations for non-emergency hospital stays and lower reimbursements to podiatrists, chiropractors and home care attendants, will affect elderly and disabled people the most. Services for those groups account for about two-thirds of Medicaid spending in Indiana and provide the biggest targets as lawmakers and the administration of Gov. Mitch Daniels seek to rein in a state Medicaid bill expected to increase by about 25 percent during the current fiscal year and the next one.

Public health insurance advocate David Roos of Covering Kids & Families of Indiana said the rule changes taking effect Saturday were the least controversial and easiest for Indiana Medicaid to make.

"The remaining cuts will be much, much tougher. They will be down to the bone," Roos said Thursday.

The emergency rules were instituted without the usual public notice and comment procedures, but they expire in 90 days. They can be extended once for another 90 days. Barlow said the Medicaid office will aim to make the cuts permanent.

They are expected to save the state $12.3 million during the full 12 months of fiscal year 2012 and $13.3 million in 2013, Barlow said.

Spokeswoman Sally Morris of The Arc of Indiana, which represents developmentally disabled people, said the cuts caused concern but there's more worry about the unspecified ones still to come.

"It is a huge concern what will happen with the Medicaid program," she said. Capping dental services at $1,000 per year for Medicaid members over age 21 will save about $1.5 million over the next six months, Barlow said. The cap is expected to affect fewer than 7,000 of Indiana's roughly 400,000 adults on Medicaid, he said.

However, the cap could have the unintended effect of driving some Medicaid recipients with severe toothaches, infections and other dental emergencies to hospital emergency rooms, thus shifting costs to hospitals, since hospitals are barred by law from turning away patients, said Doug Bush, executive director of the Indiana Dental Association.

"We don't think this is going to result in a net cost savings to the state," Bush said.

Barlow said the dental association was painting "a doomsday scenario."

The Indiana Hospital Association issued a statement noting "the harsh, fiscal realities the state faces and that tough decisions must be made."

"At the same time, it is true that in the absence of routine care, all roads lead to the emergency room," the statement said.

Dr. Bernard Emkes, past president of the Indiana State Medical Association and one of the group's Medicaid experts, said the cuts were fair given the drop in state tax revenues. He noted that all health care providers absorbed an earlier across-the-board cut in Medicaid reimbursements.

"The dilemma is we're caught between a rock and a hard place. The state has no money right now," said Emkes, an Indianapolis family physician.

Republicans eye bigger cuts amid budget fight

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON | Fri Apr 1, 2011 4:33pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the biggest spending cut in U.S. history takes shape in Congress, Republicans are preparing a more ambitious proposal that could scale back the benefit programs that account for the majority of government spending.

Republicans in the House of Representatives are expected to unveil a budget plan next week for the coming fiscal year that would cut taxes, deepen spending cuts and cut the Medicaid health-insurance plan for the poor and disabled, according to lawmakers and aides familiar with the plan.

House Speaker John Boehner said Congress needed to address the rising cost of benefit programs that were expected to explode in the coming decades due to an aging population.

"It's clear that Washington has to act on the big challenges that face our country," Boehner said at a news conference. "It is time to quit kicking the can down the road."

The plan will move more aggressively to cut budget deficits, which have hovered around 10 percent of gross domestic product in recent years, than a proposal put forward by President Barack Obama, lawmakers said.

But it would not balance the budget for 20 years at the earliest, said Republican Representative Tim Scott. That may not be fast enough for the party's more conservative members, who are planning a budget proposal of their own.

The proposal, which House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is expected to unveil on Tuesday, serves as a blueprint for the coming fiscal year, which starts on October 1.

It will arrive in the thick of a debate over the budget for the current fiscal year. Lawmakers have taken the government to the brink of a shutdown as they struggle to reconcile a Republican plan that would cut $61 billion from the current budget with a Democratic plan that would keep spending essentially flat.

The two sides have tentatively agreed to a cut of $33 billion, which would be the largest domestic spending reduction in U.S. history and a big victory for Republicans who won control of the House of Representatives last fall on a promise to scale back the size of government.

That fight has been largely confined to the 13 percent of the $3.7 trillion federal budget that is devoted to annual domestic spending, but the Republican proposal for 2012 will broaden the battlefield to encompass healthcare spending, taxes and possibly retirement benefits as well.

"We need to get the debate over to where it matters: entitlements," said Republican Representative Tom Cole, a member of the House Budget Committee.

Though it does not have the force of law, Ryan's budget blueprint gives marching orders to other House members as they write tax policy, set spending levels and oversee benefit programs like crop subsidies, Social Security and the Medicare health-insurance program for retirees.

A Ryan spokesman said it was premature to comment on the details of the plan.

ANOTHER SHOWDOWN WITH THE SENATE

The plan will set up another showdown with the Democratic-controlled Senate, where Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has said that more tax revenue may have to accompany spending cuts and an overhaul of benefits in order to balance the budget.

Ryan's budget will propose lowering corporate and individual income tax rates, said Republican Representative Bill Flores, who sits on the Budget Committee.

It will propose further cuts to domestic spending beyond the levels currently being debated by Congress, Cole said.

It will probably not cut defense spending beyond levels put forward by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, several Republican lawmakers indicated.

A likely target is Medicaid, which accounts for roughly 8 percent of federal spending. States will be required to expand their Medicaid programs to comply with Obama's healthcare reform law starting in 2014, which has drawn objections from many Republican governors.

Ryan has backed plans in the past that would give states block grants to run the program while cutting the overall cost of the program.

As a program primarily aimed at poor people, Medicaid is not as politically popular as programs that benefit all retirees, such as Medicare and Social Security. Lawmakers say it is one of the easiest benefit programs to fix.

Democrats have signaled their opposition.

A block grant proposal "simply gives governors a blank check and a license to deny critical care to millions of seniors and to people with disabilities," said Representative Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee.

Ryan's plan may shy away from some of the more aggressive proposals put forward by Republicans in the past. Though Boehner and other Republican leaders have advocated raising the retirement age, Ryan's budget may steer clear of proposing changes to the Social Security retirement program, aides said.

A plan by former Republican President George W. Bush to allow workers to invest some of those savings in the markets died in Congress in 2005.

Though Ryan's plan may cut the Medicare healthcare program for retirees, it might leave out a controversial fix he has backed in the past that would give recipients a fixed amount of money to buy private health insurance.

(Editing by Paul Simao)

Gov. Jerry Brown's Plan A to end the state budget crisis collapsed — and there's no Plan B.

There's blame to go around

Gov. Jerry Brown's Plan A to end the state budget crisis collapsed — and there's no Plan B.

George Skelton
Capitol Journal
March 31, 2011
From Sacramento

It's another sorry saga in Sacramento: Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature botching the governor's Plan A for healing the bleeding budget. Who's to blame? And what now?

The first question is easy to answer: Blame everyone and everything.

Blame the Democratic governor and, to a lesser extent, Democratic legislators. Blame short-sighted Republican lawmakers.

Blame the labor unions that intimidate Democrats. Blame the hate-mongering radio entertainers and a Washington-based anti-tax demagogue (Grover Norquist) who petrify Republicans.

Blame a governing system that invariably produces gridlock. And blame the voters for creating the ungovernable system.

What now? Nobody knows. "Exploring all our options," Brown and Democratic leaders are saying. But there is no Plan B. More on that later.

Brown's at fault because of his foolish campaign promise last year to give voters the final say on any tax increase. To do that, he needed a special election. And he needed a two-thirds majority — meaning at least two Republicans in each house — to authorize the election.

Because labor unions were needed to bankroll an election campaign, they had huge sway over any deal the governor might cook up with the GOP. Big problem. Brown couldn't deal directly with Republicans. He had to run stuff by union leaders.

But I repeat myself from previous columns.

As it turned out, Brown and a handful of Republicans came close to cutting a deal that would have allowed a June election. Both sides agree they were inches from a pact on two "reforms" that the GOP demanded: on public employee pensions and business regulations.

"We were very close on those two items," says Sen. Bill Emmerson (R-Hemet), one of the GOP Five who had been bargaining with Brown for weeks. "I'm very disappointed that it blew up."

The blowup came over a proposed state spending cap, Emmerson says.

Republicans demanded a tight spending cap tied to population and inflation growth. And they accepted the Democrats' formula for measuring inflation: per-capita income growth. But they wanted any surplus revenue to go toward retiring certain debt and building infrastructure. And they said the cap should stay in effect until the debt was paid off. They figured that would be 2017.

Then after the debt was retired, Republicans insisted, a looser spending cap should take effect, one that the Legislature already has passed and is scheduled to be on next year's ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.

Brown and labor balked at all this, especially placing the second cap in the state Constitution.

Crazy! Here they are that close to a deal that potentially could have righted the sinking ship of state and they get distracted by the color of life preservers.

There's no money. A tight spending cap for a few years seems moot. It could even be a good thing. Compromise and end it when Brown's higher taxes expired. Brown asked for five years of higher taxes. Republicans had offered three. Can anyone say four?

There also were other disagreements, but none that couldn't have been resolved. You'd think.

Republicans, of course, blew yet another chance to be relevant in this blue state by not capitalizing on their clout over a two-thirds vote. A little give here and there and they could have had pension rollbacks, business regulatory relief and even a spending cap. All for just putting a tax question on the ballot.

Democratic legislators essentially did their job. They basically cut in half a $26-billion deficit, mostly with spending cuts principally aimed at the poor, the disabled, the aged and the tuition-paying university students. Republicans wouldn't even vote for all that whacking.

But Democrats can be faulted for fantasizing that they're more powerful than they really are. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) lectured lawmakers during a budget floor debate that "elections matter." Because voters had elected a Democratic governor and huge Democratic majorities in the Legislature, Republicans "shouldn't overreach," he cautioned.

Elections don't matter as much as they should, however, when a governor discounts the value of his office by abdicating some of its power to the voters. And they don't matter as much when a two-thirds legislative vote is required for tax increases.

The system is especially at fault.

California is one of roughly a dozen states that require a two-thirds vote for taxes. Back when Sacramento actually governed, taxes could be hiked on a majority vote. That changed with Proposition 13 in 1978. The property tax-cutting measure also led, unfortunately, to more Sacramento control and funding of local government and schools.

Also blame the voters' failed experiment with term limits. Inexperienced lawmakers just don't seem to have the know-how or courage to make a deal that might upset someone, such as a labor boss or radio shock jock.

That malady is compounded by uncompetitive legislative races, which should change next year when independent redistricting and an open primary system kick in.

But what now? No lawmaker wants to solve the deficit entirely with cuts.

Democrats, however, should forget any notion of slipping a tax measure through the Legislature on a majority vote. It would be challenged in court. And they'd look like jerks.

There's talk of a November election to vote on some labor-sponsored tax initiatives. Sounds like a certified loser without bipartisan business support. And don't count on that.

My Plan B: Forget an election. Democratic leaders should buy off enough Republican votes — yes, it's possible — and send a tax extension down to Brown's desk. Dare him to veto it. He wouldn't. But if he did, override the veto.

Budget talks fold, and California GOP's influence fades further

Budget talks fold, and California GOP's influence fades further

Several major Republican priorities were within reach as four GOP lawmakers negotiated on Gov. Jerry Brown's budget plan. When talks broke down, they lost a rare window of opportunity.

By Evan Halper and Michael J. Mishak, Los Angeles Times
March 31, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento -- After years of sitting on the bench, watching much of the state's business being conducted with little regard for their input, California Republicans in recent months had an opportunity to share the reins of government.

Now, that appears to be gone.

The Democratic governor and legislative leaders offered the GOP a rare chance to shape key policies — and mitigate several that were forged on the other side of the aisle over more than a decade. GOP legislation was suddenly on the front burner. Rolling back government employee pensions, easing regulations on business, limiting the growth of government all seemed within reach.

The price for this potential bounty was four votes, the ones Gov. Jerry Brown needed to place a tax measure before voters. Not an endorsement of more taxes, just a vote to let voters decide the matter.

Today, after the collapse of those negotiations, many in the Capitol are asking whether, in declining to provide those four "ayes," the Republicans have cemented their fate as a dying minority party in this largely Democratic state.

"These opportunities don't come up too much in Sacramento," said Bill Whalen, a GOP political consultant who was an advisor to former Gov. Pete Wilson.

"If I'm the Republicans … I would argue for a minimalist approach," he said. "Be able to declare victory and retreat. … That should have been part of the calculus."

Brown's calculations also came up short. The veteran policymaker had expressed confidence since taking office in January that he could scrape together enough support for his ballot plan. He apparently misjudged the cost of even the most limited GOP sponsorship.

He also may have underestimated how little ground he could give before Democrats would squawk and threaten to withdraw their support. Budget talks were not shackled by such intense partisanship when Brown negotiated his last state spending plan three decades ago.

Duf Sundheim, a moderate Republican and former state party chair, said the breakdown of negotiations "hurts everybody. … It doesn't help Republicans. It doesn't help Jerry Brown. It doesn't help Democrats. It's why people are so disgusted with the process."

The Republicans say they walked away from the negotiating table when it became clear the governor was willing to go only so far. In the rush to negotiate sweeping policy changes under a crushing deadline, they began to fear that the concessions on offer could be rolled back later or would not be as far-reaching as they wanted.

In a puzzling eleventh-hour shift, they lifted the veil of secrecy on the talks and released the sprawling list of GOP demands that had been brought to the negotiating table. It spilled over seven pages and veered into such topics as when the state should hold its presidential primary. It included the continuation of billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and tax breaks that Brown wants to eliminate to balance the budget.

The public move appeared intended to show that Republicans were being serious and reasonable. But the Brown administration seized on the GOP document to make the opposite case.

In addition, the pressure from anti-tax activists on the GOP not to cut a deal was so intense that only a handful of the Legislature's 41 Republicans would even engage with the governor.

"One could easily picture the political attacks that would have followed, even if those Republicans won big, substantial concessions," said GOP political analyst Jack Pitney. "A lot of activists would have accused them of selling their birthright for a mess of pottage."

The collapse of talks was a major victory for the activist core of the party, including the bloggers and talk radio hosts who make it their mission to keep GOP lawmakers from drifting toward the political middle.

"No Budget Deal is Much Better Than A Bad Budget Deal," trumpeted a headline on the Flash Report, the sacred online text for party activists. "There is NO public policy trade off that makes it okay to then vote to place taxes onto a special election ballot," the article said.

It referred to the five GOP Senate Republicans who had been involved in budget negotiations with the governor as the "Rogue 5."

As hardliners have tightened their grip on California's Republican Party, it has continued to lose ground. The GOP has no statewide officeholders and a thin bench.

Last year, as Republicans swept statehouses across the nation, in California the party lost the two statewide offices it held and a legislative seat it had held for two decades. The highest state office Republicans now hold in California is on the Board of Equalization.

Less than a third of California voters, 30.9%, are registered Republicans, down from 39% two decades ago. And when Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's star power offered the party a bridge to wider acceptance, officials irked by his failure to hew to their conservative platform worked to diminish his clout.

If Republicans had forged a deal with Brown, it might have been the foundation of an enduring partnership. Now, the centrist governor who was open to some of the Republican agenda could be pulled to the left.

If Brown decides to get his tax measure on the ballot by gathering signatures for a citizen initiative, the costs will be substantial — and he'll rely on Democratic interests to help bankroll the effort. They, in turn, will have a bigger hand in helping shape the measure.

Alternatively, the governor could decide to scheme with Democrats to exploit one of the legal loopholes the Legislature's attorneys have identified to jam through by simple majority a budget that contains new taxes. That would be an end run around the constitutional requirement that tax hikes be approved by two-thirds of both houses.

Either way, Republicans would be cut out of the process, unless they scraped together funds for competing ballot measures. That could prove difficult, as some of the business organizations that tend to fund their causes have endorsed Brown's tax plan.

It could be a long time before Republican lawmakers have another opportunity to move their policies forward, said Barbara O'Connor, emeritus director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Cal State Sacramento.

"The end result of all this," she said, "is they will become even more irrelevant."

Minnesota Republicans say: Poor people with money should be outlaws

Minnesota Republicans say: Poor people with money should be outlaws

By Staff |

March 15, 2011

Read more articles in Poor People's Movements

St. Paul, MN – Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.
On March 15, Angel Buechner of the Welfare Rights Committee testified in front of the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee on House File 171. Buechner told committee members, “We would like to address the provision that makes it illegal for MFIP [one of Minnesota’s welfare programs] families to withdraw cash from the cash portion of the MFIP grant - and in fact, appears to make it illegal for MFIP families to have any type of money at all in their pockets. How do you expect people to take care of business like paying bills such as lights, gas, water, trash and phone?”
House File 171 would make it so that families on MFIP - and disabled single adults on General Assistance and Minnesota Supplemental Aid - could not have their cash grants in cash or put into a checking account. Rather, they could only use a state-issued debit card at special terminals in certain businesses that are set up to accept the card.
The bill also calls for unconstitutional residency requirements, not allowing the debit card to be used across state lines and other provisions that the Welfare Rights Committee and others consider unacceptable.
Buechner testified, “We’ll leave you with this. It is not right to punish a whole group because of the supposed actions of a few. You in this room could have a pretty rough time if that was the case. It is not right to stigmatize and dehumanize women living the hard life of trying to raise children while living 60% below the poverty level. It is not right to use racist, bumper-sticker hate to inflict human misery for political gain.”

Wisconsin schools call off classes as budget protests continue

By Phil Gast, CNN

February 17, 2011 2:16 a.m. EST

(CNN) -- At least 15 school systems in Wisconsin canceled Thursday's classes because teachers and other public employees will continue protests at the state Capitol over a bill that would strip them of most of their collective bargaining rights and increase their contributions for benefits.
At least 10,000 employees and supporters rallied Wednesday in Madison in opposition to legislation supported by Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
Classes will not be held for a second day Thursday in the Madison Metropolitan School District, said spokesman Ken Syke, because of a call by the Wisconsin Education Association Council for people to come to the Capitol on Thursday and Friday to "stand beside your neighbors, family and friends to help our voices be heard."
Syke earlier said about 40 percent of 2,600 teachers, assistants, social workers and psychologists in the bargaining unit called in sick late Tuesday, forcing the district to cancel Wednesday's classes for 24,500 students.
School officials in Oregon, south of Madison, said they canceled classes Thursday because of anticipated staff absences.
CNN affiliate WISC listed the multiple school closings on its website.
Walker said Wednesday he is dealing with a budget crisis. Employees and unions contend his bill is an assault on worker rights.
"This is all about balancing the budget," Walker wrote on his Twitter account. "WI needs leadership."
Walker is asking legislators to pass his "Budget Repair Bill" to combat a $137 million shortfall through June 30. An upcoming two-year budget for 2011-13 must address a pending $3.6 billion deficit, he said.
The bill cleared the Joint Finance Committee Wednesday night on a 12-4 vote, CNN affiliate WKOW in Madison, Wisconsin, reported and can now move onto the state Senate.
In a budgetary scenario being played out in other cash-strapped states and municipalities, the legislation requires workers to cover more of their health care premiums and pension contributions, although supporters say local governments will decide on health care contribution for their employees.
The legislation also requires collective bargaining units to conduct annual votes to maintain certification. Unions would lose the right to have dues deducted from worker paychecks and collective bargaining can only cover wages.
The bill has prompted protests from public employees and supporters. On Tuesday, an estimated 13,000 people thronged Tuesday to the Capitol, followed by 10,000 Wednesday, said Carla Vigue, spokeswoman for the Department of Administration.
Unions said the number of protesters was much higher.
"I appreciate the fact that the folks here today will have a chance to have their voices heard," Walker told reporters Wednesday. "But I want to be sure the taxpayers of Wisconsin will have their chance to have their voices heard."
"Calling this a budget bill is a smokescreen," said Bryan Kennedy, president of AFT-Wisconsin, which represents about 17,000 employees. "This is an attack on all labor organizations."
Sign-carrying protesters jammed the Capitol rotunda on Tuesday and Wednesday, chanting "Kill the bill" and "Workers Unite." Thousands more marched outside in the snow.
The governor, who took his campaign for the bill to his Twitter account, said he was talking with some legislators about protections for workers.
Walker's press secretary, Cullen Werwie, told CNN he expects the measure to reach the Senate on Thursday and, possibly, the Assembly (lower chamber) on Friday. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans, but the legislation likely faces a tougher test in the Senate.
Under the bill, public employees in the Wisconsin Retirement System would pay about 5.8% of their salaries toward pensions, up significantly from 0.2%, Werwie said. And state workers would pay for 12.6% of their monthly health care premiums, up from between 4% and 6% percent.
Pay raises would be limited to inflation, unless a referendum approves of a larger increase.
"This is not something unusual," Walker said of the employee contributions. "That is what middle-class workers in this state have experienced."
The legislation would save the state about $30 million between now and the end of June and, if continued, an estimated $300 million during the next two years, Walker has said. He said workers in the private sector pay higher percentages of their pay for health care and pensions.
The governor visited private businesses on Tuesday, arguing the bill would end furloughs and prevent layoffs.
"People viewed what we are proposing as modest," he said.
The changes do not apply to to police, firefighters and state troopers, who would continue to bargain for their benefits.
But the proposed curtailing of most collective bargaining rights among public employees has drawn the most vocal complaints. There are about 300,000 state and local workers in the heavily unionized state.
Of 425 primary and secondary school systems, for example, employees at all but two are covered by AFT-Wisconsin or the National Education Association, Kennedy told CNN.
Walker, he claimed, is ignoring $100 million in previous employee concessions and wants to take his measure directly to a vote rather than negotiate.
Calling Wisconsin a "state in turmoil," Kennedy said the debate is "not a financial issue. It is about worker rights."
His group is calling for more rallies on Thursday to "keep the pressure on."
The website for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees featured a video of interviews with union workers.
"This is the state where collective bargaining for public employees started," one said. "If Wisconsin falls, so does the nation."
Because of the budget imbroglio, the Madison school district warned teachers that they would be docked pay if they were sick Wednesday through Friday and returned without a note from a medical provider, Syke said. They may face other sanctions.
Although Superintendent Daniel A. Nerad wrote Walker, asking him to return to the table to discuss collective bargaining, he also has said "our No. 1 responsibility is to instruct students," Syke said.
Some students left school Tuesday to join the protests, the spokesman said.
Many states, including California and New York, are grappling with budget deficit crises.
A month after Illinois lawmakers approved a massive tax hike, Gov. Pat Quinn on Wednesday unveiled a $35.4 billion budget that depends on state lawmakers approving $8.7 billion in new borrowing largely to clear a towering stack of unpaid bills.

The budget, which increases spending by $1.7 billion from the previous year and closes a $13 billion gap, slashes programs for the elderly, the poor and the disabled, but leaves education funding largely untouched. No layoffs of state workers are suggested.

Comments on GOP: Going Over The Precipice

1. It's about time someone started telling the truth about the mess in California. But the real motivations for its continuation, I fear, are a culture of personal greed and social irresponsibility. As a native Californian who has lived most of my adult life elsewhere but now live here again, I am frankly shocked and appalled by the selfishness and narcissism of so many Californians who allow this nonsense to continue. How bad does it have to get? And Prop. 13 has to go as well.

Submitted by: Harvey

4:36 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

2. Rural California - where most of the state's remaining Rebulican legislators come from - will be hit especially hard in the coming months and years. It won't be long before it becomes clear that their own political choices played a role in this mess. The Republicans are digging their own grave.

Submitted by: Jimbo

4:19 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

3. Arnold - it was bad enough with the dreadful actor Ronald Reagan - but living with this Austrian dreg has been more horrendous.

Submitted by: michael Pasadena

3:48 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

4. Typical liberal folly! CA (and the US) are seeing conditions that in many ways mirror those that triggered the American Revolution. Only now it's the Democrats, unions and illegals instead of the English that we need freedom from! Our country was built on personal responsibility and freedom. I'm sick of all the cry-baby liberals and "the poor" with their hands reaching into my pockets! Stop taking from me!

Submitted by: John, Camarillo

3:25 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

5. So majority rules? Then you fully support the implementation of Prop 8, right? Hypocrite.

Submitted by: DTS

3:22 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

6. 1.CA schools have been destroyed by the huge numbers of illegals that should not be in them. 2.Most estimates place the costs of government services for illegals in CA at over $8B per year. 3.The prison populations in CA are estimated to be close to 40% illegals. 4.We have 11% unemployment-don't tell me there aren't legal residents that will take the jobs illegals do.

Submitted by: Tom, Simi Valley

3:14 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

7. Mr. Meyerson, reading this reminds me: "Never confuse stupidity and ignorance, the latter is a changeable state while the former is a gift from God." What liberal rubbish! This may be the dumbest column! Not to mention your revisionist view of history; Clinton's success was because Gingrich and true fiscal conservatives that kept him from spending us into oblivion. These cuts and more are needed! When will voters the finally wake-up and vote-out all the corrupt Democrats (& Republicans) in the legislature who have ruined CA by being in the pocket of the unions and illegal alien special interests!

Submitted by: Ron, Ventura

3:06 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

8. When have republicans been on the right side of history. Check their record. They opposed: 1. Medicare 2. Social Security 3. CIVIL RIGHTs 4. Meaningful immigration reform. 5. Minority rights. 6. Healh Care reform. Why do you expect them to do anyhting meaningful for the country now.

Submitted by: sakibaba

3:04 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

9. Eliminate jerrymandering of state office seats. Only when each each district has a 50/50 Dem/Rep voter pool will I trust a 50+1 amendment to the constitution. The districts may need to be adjusted every 5 or 10 years to ensure the 50/50 ratio. We have become sheep. State office holders must be made to fear the electorate. Knowing that one vote by a Dem or Rep voter could bounce them from a cushy office might make them more likely to be concensus oriented. If all else fails, punt.

Submitted by: Jerry Mander

2:37 PM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

10. Where else in the country can a small group of ultra conservatives wrest total control of a Blue-State budget?

Submitted by: Doug

11. All Meyerson wants to do is spend everyone elses money on things neither CA nor the US can afford. Everyone assumes jobs will be coming back - but don't count on it with the "soak the rich", don't ask the teachers union to actually teach and, oh yes, join a union so you can retire and leave those still working poorer by the year (just ask the junior members of the UAW)!

Submitted by: Bruce B

8:39 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

12. Mr. Meyerson immediately gets off on the wrong foot by declaring "majority rights" the essence of a "democracy." Please note -- the United States is NOT a Democracy. It is a constitutional republic that employs democratic institutions but only insofar as they support the primary consideration of the U.S. Constitution which is that MINORITY RIGHTS take precedence over all else. This is the essence of the Bill of Rights. Sorry, but the old lefty whine-song about the 2/3 budget doesn't fly here.

Submitted by: TruthTeller

8:38 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

13. Well, if all the liberal tax-and-spenders are complaining about this budget -- and they are -- it must be a pretty good deal. FINALLY Schwartzenegger stepped up to the plate and did what he promised he'd do when he was elected: started working toward some fiscal sanity in this insane state, instead of wasting time criticizing his fellow Republicans and trying to solve the world's imaginary "climate change" problems.

Submitted by: Brian Baker

8:20 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

14. We are a Republic, learn to appreciate that fact. Your recommended liberalpolicies have nearly bankrupt this state.

Submitted by: Andy

8:15 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

15. Meanwhile as the poor have their services cut, the lazy unions at the trough are getting some days off. The day will come when the pension fund for their retirements are going to break the state completely. The state unions are the greedy selfish ones here. Cuts on the backs of the poor so they can suck on the government teat. Disgusting.

Submitted by: carla123

7:48 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

16. To Harold Meyerson and his ilk, what the Republicans are doing seems dumb. Harold is like the stereotype "dumb blonde" housewife, who is angry at her husband over money. The husband is balancing the checkbook and telling her what they can no longer afford to spend money on. She meanwhile is angry because they aren't out of money, there are still checks left. In fact there are quite a few products that she can buy and save him huge amounts of money. "dumb Republicans"... yeah, sure Harold, if you say so.

Submitted by: David Burgess

7:46 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

17. Californians are the third highest taxed in the country when you include all state and local taxes. By the same standards, California's businesses are the sixth highest taxed in the country. Companies like Telmar, Terumo and Creel are leaving the state. The Automobile Club of Southern California now has over 1000 of its wokers in Texas. Apria has moved 700 jobs to Kansas. The public employees unions won't be happy until they've killed off every last business in California.

Submitted by: Tommy D

7:40 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

18. Majority rule only works when all men are created equal. If you want to change to a simple majority then tie it with a flat tax. Otherwise you get mob rule and legalized confiscation of personal property by those whose only skill is to vote to take it.

Submitted by: Kevin

7:38 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

19. [Head scratch] "What to think of a columnist for a major newspaper in the United States who thinks we are a democracy?" Harold, I'm bookmarking this screed so we can all laugh at you in the near future when cutting government spending solves the problem. No...No...I know you think your smarter than logic, and more scintillating than reason. But the fact is you don't raise taxes in a recession Einstein period. Oh, and for the record. We are a representative republic not a democracy. Bye Now.

Submitted by: Andy B

7:36 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

20. "the minority Republicans have managed to push through a budget that makes the state sicker and dumber" Oh, come on. Was California sicker and dumber 10 years ago? Similar revenue numbers should equal similar spending numbers. Chicken Little and Henny Penny are getting a little old, IMHO.

Submitted by: Denver

21. "The most basic principle of any democracy is that of majority rule" When will liberals learn, California is not a democracy its a republic, just as the nation is a republic. Republics avoid mob rule which leftist tend to like.

Submitted by: TNR

7:30 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

22. Exactly why is it that a cut of even a nickel from the governments bloated budget means that women and children are going to die?

Submitted by: paulejb

7:30 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

23. What are you a Demoncratic hack! The Dems own the congress in california. They do whatever they want and have created an unsustainable socialist utopia.

Submitted by: Lee

7:27 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

24. The elitism that flows from this schnook is so palpable you could build a bronze statue of it. Picture a tweed-jacket wearing white man with one foot on the neck of a business owner and the other on an American flag.

Submitted by: Tony Locke

7:26 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

25. Wow. What a surprise. 2000 words on how the only problem in California is that we don't pay enough taxes. And those mean old republicans are the only thing standing in our ability to pay more taxes. The republicans are clearly trying to destroy California, as there is no other possible explanation for them refusing to allow us to all pay more taxes. I would like to thank the L.A. Times for giving us this fresh new insight. Again, WOW.

Submitted by: Phil

7:03 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

26. Democracy also works to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Hence the 2/3rd majority, which, btw, was approved by the California voters. The California GOP is keeping the broken California system, controlled by special interests, from bankrupting the state even further. This column is fundamentally wrong as the problem in California is overspending and raising taxes is not the answer. Hence, the GOP is "California's White Knight".

Submitted by: tonyE

6:53 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

27. Well isnt that the pot calling the kettle black. Shame on Republicans for being the minority and trying to get what they want. Isnt this entire state designed to cater to the minority rights of illegal aliens through its sanctuary cities and loose restrictions on gov. programs? Come live in CA, Welfare for Everyone!!!!!

Submitted by: Jesse

6:53 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

28. The Republicans have already reduced California to the level of a third-rate "podunkia" in the name of opposing taxes. The best thing about the new budget, which once again seems to assume that voters harmed by ripping off local government aren't the same ones hurt by cutting state services, is that it will show people once and for all what the no-tax philosophy means in practice. GOP, be careful what you ask for...

Submitted by: publicpolicy

6:48 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

29. It's not hard to see the similarities between the California legislature and the U.S. Senate. All legislation now requires 60 votes (instead of 51) otherwise the Republicans will filibuster.

Submitted by: Dave in MT

6:46 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

30. Harold Meyerson is out in left field. Blame the Republicans? Sure pal. And just where were the Democrats when the state had a surplus? Did the Democrates save any for a rainly day? No way. Spent every damn nickel that came in and borrowed even MORE. The entire deficit is due to the fools in Sacramento who cannot and will not keep spending within means. I am GLAD that SEVERE cuts will now be implemented. It's about time this state was FORCED to live within its means. I am sick of supporting illegals and their kids.

Submitted by: Evad the Slayer

31. Taxes were raised. I paid more for my car license renewal, and I pay more sales tax every time I shop. When a writer makes such a fundamental mistake, I ignore the rest of what he has to say.

Submitted by: bkl

6:38 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

32. You apparently think it "sick" and "dumb" that responsible members of California's government have concluded that going on spending money after you go broke isn't a workable option. What do you suggest, Mr Meyerson? Go even broker? Ruin California's economy completely? Raise taxes enormously, thereby creating even more tax refugees fleeing the state? Yes, people in California are hurting, but that's in large measure because people in California were dumb enough to think they could vote themselves infinite largess from the state's coffers, and vote not to pay it.

Submitted by: Henry Miller

6:36 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

33. "The most basic principle of any democracy is that of majority rule, with minority rights running a clear but close second." What an appalling distortion of reality! For a century after the Civil War, blacks were considered by the majority of Americans to be, at best, second-class people and your comment implies that the majority-endorsed segregation and abasement of blacks would have been just fine with you. The fact of the matter is that "rights," by definition, /always/ trump the vagrant wind of majority opinion. They are the principal protection against "the tyranny of the majority."

Submitted by: Henry Miller

6:35 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

34. Please, democrats, vote down this skewed, imbalanced "deal." If the Big Five deal goes through, I will regard the democrats as having betrayed California. It's time for the democrats to have a backbone. Cuts, yes, but these cuts must be tempered with some additional revenues.

Submitted by: rocky

5:50 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

35. Maybe the dems should cut the six figure salaries of prison guards, eliminate all of the hundred plus worthless boards and commissions (strawberry board - please) Stop "retired" gov workers from collecting "retirement" benefits while working for another city or agency down the road (often collectin 6 figure incomes from both) How about cutting the worthless bureaucrats that work for school districts instead of teachers. Oh yeah the dems can't do that because it will upset the unions. So i guess all they can do is screw the poor kids and old people right.

Submitted by: Josh

5:39 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

36. As long as more than half of all Californians pay little or no state income tax, it should require a 2/3 vote to raise income taxes on the rest of us. The truth is the 2/3 requirement can be repealed with a simple majority vote of the people. Put it on the ballot Mr. Meyerson. It will go down in flames again like it always does. Californians like the 2/3 requirement, it prevents the big spending liberals from constantly raising taxes to solve every budget "crisis".

Submitted by: Ken

5:05 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

37. Great article. The Democrats shoud start by giving the Republicans only enough votes so that every Republican is shown to be responsible for this budget and it' consequences.

Submitted by: MurphyMaloney

4:53 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

38. While we're at it, let's eliminate term limits so that true leadership has time to develop in the Legislature.

Submitted by: Kaye Reeves

4:50 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

39. Harold What world do you live in? You and your social leftist's created this mess in california.The minascule cuts were a joke. You want tax increase right. How's this. 75% tax on all union pension funds. 75% on all movies that are made. 90% tax on all unemployment,welfare and other social programs. Problem solved Nuff Said!

Submitted by: joe markota

3:48 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

40. It is even worse than reported here. Yesterday our Doctor informed us that MediCal/MediCare was cutting back every patients by up to 2/3s to save money. My wife, who is terminal, is going to have her pain med cut by 50% in the next couple months. Our Dr., the director of a large County Clinic, was no the verge of tears as he tried to explain there was nothing he could do but follow the new rules that were made to save money with no regard of the extreme suffering this will cause. This will impact at least a couple hundred thousand people in Ca.

Submitted by: Jim Dandy

41. They did raise taxes - a 15% increase for state employees

Submitted by: ar

9:23 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

42. Harold Meyerson articulated exactly why California NEEDS protection from a simple majority (aka liberal Democrats). What is "extreme" about asking the state to live within its means, curb the handouts to everyone who can't support themselves, and refusing to drive more jobs out of the state? Thank you Republicans!!

Submitted by: Swanny

9:22 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

43. Welcome to the new third world California (or Kaleefornia as Ahnuld likes to call it)

Submitted by: ar

9:22 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

44. Deport. Fine businesses who employ illegals. Stop the after school babysitting. Eliminate the safety net programs for illegals. Stop granting citizenship to children of illegals. Do these things and watch the deficit shrink.

Submitted by: Dan

9:22 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

45. I believe in the rule of the majority for the most part. And I think the current game played in Sacramento allows both parties to do nothing while blaming the opposite party for everything. Think about it. If the Democrats were allowed to use their majority to really enact the kind of government they want, the voters would sack them in a minute after the voters' taxes climb to the stratosphere. Let the Dems rule, after all we voted them in. Now let them take the blame for their ineptitude. Same goes for the other guys.

Submitted by: Donald lais

9:14 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

46. The comments on this article make far more sense than what Meyerson wrote. Good work people.

Submitted by: John Galt

9:10 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

47. So I guess Meyerson is opposed to the Libs best friend, legislating from the bench, now that he is such a staunch supporter of majority rule. I would never, ever want to live in Harold Meyersons' world. Only the two-thirds majority vote has kept the old hippies in the Legislature from turning California into the Socialist utopia that Meyerson has spent his life dreaming of. Cutbacks may trigger a vicious cycle? What about tax increases? No vicious cycle there? I mean it's not like they're going to continue to spend more money than they've got, right? It will be different this time. What a joke.

Submitted by: Richard Radomski

9:04 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

48. What does a L.L.D. in Washington know about California? What diarrhea would be spewing out of his mouth IF we scrapped the California "quirk" and now all the lawmakers need is 50% plus one to pass "anything" EXCEPT Sacramento is 50+1 Republican. This jerk would be screaming bloody murder, slinging every kind Anti- American statement of racism elitism to good old fashion Nazism.

Submitted by: Richard Cory

8:45 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

49. All Meyerson wants to do is spend everyone elses money on things neither CA nor the US can afford. Everyone assumes jobs will be coming back - but don't count on it with the "soak the rich", don't ask the teachers union to actually teach and, oh yes, join a union so you can retire and leave those still working poorer by the year (just ask the junior members of the UAW)!

Submitted by: Bruce B

8:39 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

50. Mr. Meyerson immediately gets off on the wrong foot by declaring "majority rights" the essence of a "democracy." Please note -- the United States is NOT a Democracy. It is a constitutional republic that employs democratic institutions but only insofar as they support the primary consideration of the U.S. Constitution which is that MINORITY RIGHTS take precedence over all else. This is the essence of the Bill of Rights. Sorry, but the old lefty whine-song about the 2/3 budget doesn't fly here.

Submitted by: TruthTeller

51. Well, if all the liberal tax-and-spenders are complaining about this budget -- and they are -- it must be a pretty good deal. FINALLY Schwartzenegger stepped up to the plate and did what he promised he'd do when he was elected: started working toward some fiscal sanity in this insane state, instead of wasting time criticizing his fellow Republicans and trying to solve the world's imaginary "climate change" problems.

Submitted by: Brian Baker

8:20 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

52. We are a Republic, learn to appreciate that fact. Your recommended liberalpolicies have nearly bankrupt this state.

Submitted by: Andy

8:15 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

53. Meanwhile as the poor have their services cut, the lazy unions at the trough are getting some days off. The day will come when the pension fund for their retirements are going to break the state completely. The state unions are the greedy selfish ones here. Cuts on the backs of the poor so they can suck on the government teat. Disgusting.

Submitted by: carla123

7:48 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

54. To Harold Meyerson and his ilk, what the Republicans are doing seems dumb. Harold is like the stereotype "dumb blonde" housewife, who is angry at her husband over money. The husband is balancing the checkbook and telling her what they can no longer afford to spend money on. She meanwhile is angry because they aren't out of money, there are still checks left. In fact there are quite a few products that she can buy and save him huge amounts of money. "dumb Republicans"... yeah, sure Harold, if you say so.

Submitted by: David Burgess

7:46 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

55. Californians are the third highest taxed in the country when you include all state and local taxes. By the same standards, California's businesses are the sixth highest taxed in the country. Companies like Telmar, Terumo and Creel are leaving the state. The Automobile Club of Southern California now has over 1000 of its wokers in Texas. Apria has moved 700 jobs to Kansas. The public employees unions won't be happy until they've killed off every last business in California.

Submitted by: Tommy D

7:40 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

56. Majority rule only works when all men are created equal. If you want to change to a simple majority then tie it with a flat tax. Otherwise you get mob rule and legalized confiscation of personal property by those whose only skill is to vote to take it.

Submitted by: Kevin

7:38 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

57. [Head scratch] "What to think of a columnist for a major newspaper in the United States who thinks we are a democracy?" Harold, I'm bookmarking this screed so we can all laugh at you in the near future when cutting government spending solves the problem. No...No...I know you think your smarter than logic, and more scintillating than reason. But the fact is you don't raise taxes in a recession Einstein period. Oh, and for the record. We are a representative republic not a democracy. Bye Now.

Submitted by: Andy B

7:36 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

58. "the minority Republicans have managed to push through a budget that makes the state sicker and dumber" Oh, come on. Was California sicker and dumber 10 years ago? Similar revenue numbers should equal similar spending numbers. Chicken Little and Henny Penny are getting a little old, IMHO.

Submitted by: Denver

7:31 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

59. "The most basic principle of any democracy is that of majority rule" When will liberals learn, California is not a democracy its a republic, just as the nation is a republic. Republics avoid mob rule which leftist tend to like.

Submitted by: TNR

7:30 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

60. Exactly why is it that a cut of even a nickel from the governments bloated budget means that women and children are going to die?

Submitted by: paulejb

61. What are you a Demoncratic hack! The Dems own the congress in california. They do whatever they want and have created an unsustainable socialist utopia.

Submitted by: Lee

7:27 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

62. The elitism that flows from this schnook is so palpable you could build a bronze statue of it. Picture a tweed-jacket wearing white man with one foot on the neck of a business owner and the other on an American flag.

Submitted by: Tony Locke

7:26 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

63. Wow. What a surprise. 2000 words on how the only problem in California is that we don't pay enough taxes. And those mean old republicans are the only thing standing in our ability to pay more taxes. The republicans are clearly trying to destroy California, as there is no other possible explanation for them refusing to allow us to all pay more taxes. I would like to thank the L.A. Times for giving us this fresh new insight. Again, WOW.

Submitted by: Phil

7:03 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

64. Democracy also works to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Hence the 2/3rd majority, which, btw, was approved by the California voters. The California GOP is keeping the broken California system, controlled by special interests, from bankrupting the state even further. This column is fundamentally wrong as the problem in California is overspending and raising taxes is not the answer. Hence, the GOP is "California's White Knight".

Submitted by: tonyE

6:53 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

65. Well isnt that the pot calling the kettle black. Shame on Republicans for being the minority and trying to get what they want. Isnt this entire state designed to cater to the minority rights of illegal aliens through its sanctuary cities and loose restrictions on gov. programs? Come live in CA, Welfare for Everyone!!!!!

Submitted by: Jesse

6:53 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

66. The Republicans have already reduced California to the level of a third-rate "podunkia" in the name of opposing taxes. The best thing about the new budget, which once again seems to assume that voters harmed by ripping off local government aren't the same ones hurt by cutting state services, is that it will show people once and for all what the no-tax philosophy means in practice. GOP, be careful what you ask for...

Submitted by: publicpolicy

6:48 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

67. It's not hard to see the similarities between the California legislature and the U.S. Senate. All legislation now requires 60 votes (instead of 51) otherwise the Republicans will filibuster.

Submitted by: Dave in MT

6:46 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

68. Harold Meyerson is out in left field. Blame the Republicans? Sure pal. And just where were the Democrats when the state had a surplus? Did the Democrates save any for a rainly day? No way. Spent every damn nickel that came in and borrowed even MORE. The entire deficit is due to the fools in Sacramento who cannot and will not keep spending within means. I am GLAD that SEVERE cuts will now be implemented. It's about time this state was FORCED to live within its means. I am sick of supporting illegals and their kids.

Submitted by: Evad the Slayer

6:43 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

69. Taxes were raised. I paid more for my car license renewal, and I pay more sales tax every time I shop. When a writer makes such a fundamental mistake, I ignore the rest of what he has to say.

Submitted by: bkl

6:38 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

70. You apparently think it "sick" and "dumb" that responsible members of California's government have concluded that going on spending money after you go broke isn't a workable option. What do you suggest, Mr Meyerson? Go even broker? Ruin California's economy completely? Raise taxes enormously, thereby creating even more tax refugees fleeing the state? Yes, people in California are hurting, but that's in large measure because people in California were dumb enough to think they could vote themselves infinite largess from the state's coffers, and vote not to pay it.

Submitted by: Henry Miller

71. "The most basic principle of any democracy is that of majority rule, with minority rights running a clear but close second." What an appalling distortion of reality! For a century after the Civil War, blacks were considered by the majority of Americans to be, at best, second-class people and your comment implies that the majority-endorsed segregation and abasement of blacks would have been just fine with you. The fact of the matter is that "rights," by definition, /always/ trump the vagrant wind of majority opinion. They are the principal protection against "the tyranny of the majority."

Submitted by: Henry Miller

6:35 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

72. Please, democrats, vote down this skewed, imbalanced "deal." If the Big Five deal goes through, I will regard the democrats as having betrayed California. It's time for the democrats to have a backbone. Cuts, yes, but these cuts must be tempered with some additional revenues.

Submitted by: rocky

5:50 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

73. Maybe the dems should cut the six figure salaries of prison guards, eliminate all of the hundred plus worthless boards and commissions (strawberry board - please) Stop "retired" gov workers from collecting "retirement" benefits while working for another city or agency down the road (often collectin 6 figure incomes from both) How about cutting the worthless bureaucrats that work for school districts instead of teachers. Oh yeah the dems can't do that because it will upset the unions. So i guess all they can do is screw the poor kids and old people right.

Submitted by: Josh

5:39 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

74. As long as more than half of all Californians pay little or no state income tax, it should require a 2/3 vote to raise income taxes on the rest of us. The truth is the 2/3 requirement can be repealed with a simple majority vote of the people. Put it on the ballot Mr. Meyerson. It will go down in flames again like it always does. Californians like the 2/3 requirement, it prevents the big spending liberals from constantly raising taxes to solve every budget "crisis".

Submitted by: Ken

5:05 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

75. Great article. The Democrats shoud start by giving the Republicans only enough votes so that every Republican is shown to be responsible for this budget and it' consequences.

Submitted by: MurphyMaloney

4:53 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

76. While we're at it, let's eliminate term limits so that true leadership has time to develop in the Legislature.

Submitted by: Kaye Reeves

4:50 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

77. Harold What world do you live in? You and your social leftist's created this mess in california.The minascule cuts were a joke. You want tax increase right. How's this. 75% tax on all union pension funds. 75% on all movies that are made. 90% tax on all unemployment,welfare and other social programs. Problem solved Nuff Said!

Submitted by: joe markota

3:48 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

78. It is even worse than reported here. Yesterday our Doctor informed us that MediCal/MediCare was cutting back every patients by up to 2/3s to save money. My wife, who is terminal, is going to have her pain med cut by 50% in the next couple months. Our Dr., the director of a large County Clinic, was no the verge of tears as he tried to explain there was nothing he could do but follow the new rules that were made to save money with no regard of the extreme suffering this will cause. This will impact at least a couple hundred thousand people in Ca.

Submitted by: Jim Dandy

3:36 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

79. People used to move TO California for climate and for education opportunities. Not so any more.

Submitted by: Rich Olson

2:48 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

80. Amazing the people who have benefited not only most but foremost from all of the abusive budgets of the past are not lining up to give back some of those gains for the benefit of all! Being a Lib today means everyone else sacrifices including the elderly, sick and our children, while Lib supporters only gain. It had to come crashing down someday. Imagine in an environment of deep recession what Gray Davis's proposed elimination of state income taxes for "teachers" would have added to the current disaster.

Submitted by: Pro America

81. This hasty budget deal was a bit of a surprise as it is different from what was previously on the table. Nonetheless opposition IS being assembled. Some of it is listed here: http://www.xbeepx.com/Site/SOS__Save_Our_State.html MANY believe our representatives need to hear from us now because THIS budget is not what we want or need. There are better, more moderate alternatives to what far right extremists are agitating for. Moderate Republicans and Democrats need to come together.

Submitted by: Beep

1:59 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

82. If the two thirds rule did not exist California's taxes would be double that of the highest state in the Union. They are already among the highest. Businesses that now are leaving for friendlier venues would have even more company on the way to the border or the bankruptcy court. Old folks would have to sell their homes because they could not afford the property taxes. Property owners would increase their rents to pay for the higher taxes or they too would have to sell out. This article is baloney.

Submitted by: CALIFORNIAMARTY

1:59 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

83. All the Republican rhetoric about smaller government and lower taxes translates into reduced services and programs that used to benefit poor and lower income working citizens. This happened this year in Ohio on a smaller scale. Ohio does not have the constitutional problem California has. We have half our General Assembly dominated by R's which resulted from gerrymandering after the 2000 census.

Submitted by: Tom McGuire

1:52 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

84. ".. the Republicans in the Legislature have pushed through policies that will make the state... dumber." Well, they would, wouldn't they? The dumber you are the more likely you are to vote Republican.

Submitted by: Peteran

1:50 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

85. Decades of Democrat rule have left the business landscape of the state decimated. The productive are fleeing California as fast as they can, and taking their property and income taxes revenue with them. The 2/3 rule is the only thing preventing the state from further looting the paycheck of the taxpayers. Your editorial lost all credibility when you endorsed that clown Newsom as your white knight. I guess he can do for the state what he did for San Fran: turn in into a haven for the homeless, criminal, and illegal.

Submitted by: Kevin A

1:08 AM PDT, July 23, 2009

---

86. This sort of whining commentary is hard to take seriously, when it contains not a single insight for how we SHOULD balance the budget. It would help to at least acknowledge that the pot of money is getting smaller, and government spending needs to change. Do the Democrats have a superior solution that somehow got suppressed by the minority? I haven't heard it.

Submitted by: John Z

12:43 AM PDT, July 23, 2009