California Health Report | HealthyCal - Part 30
 

California Health Report

  

California will have to do more with less

This piece is one in a series on the fiscal challenge facing California, produced in partnership with the Working Families Summit and the California Center for Research on Women and Families.

By Tim Gage

California faces an extraordinarily difficult budget this year. Better management of the state’s finances over the last decade would have made our current circumstance less difficult. But let’s be realistic – given the depth of the recession, we would be in terrible shape in any case.

The new reality is that state revenues are now about $20 billion lower per year than before the recession. That’s roughly what the state will spend this year for UC, CSU, the Department of Corrections, SSI/SSP, CalWORKs, and Developmental Services combined.

This new reality will force us to make some very difficult choices about what services the state will provide and how to pay for them.

We need to have a serious discussion about what we want from our state government. While most of the things that the state does are good and important, scarce resources will force hard decisions to significantly scale back or eliminate some of these programs. And once we’ve engaged in that conversation, we need to figure out whether and how Californians are willing to pay for those services that are deemed critical.

But in order to persuade the public to pay for those services, state government needs to do a better job of ensuring that programs are operating effectively. Too many Californians believe that it’s possible to close the budget gap simply by eliminating waste and inefficiency. Until the public perceives that government spends their money carefully to produce desired outcomes, it will be difficult to convince them to pay more.

Operating programs more effectively means being smarter about how to improve performance with the same or fewer resources. We must be in the business of striving to continually improve outcomes with limited resources. Figuring out smarter service delivery also means determining what level of government – state or local – is best suited to provide a particular service.

The reality, though, is that, particularly in the short run, we won’t be able to protect all of the state’s current services. Thus, as distasteful as it is, we need to triage by protecting those services that are most critical and scale back other services that are less so. However, we should do this with attention to what will do the least harm to service networks and minimize the cost of rebuilding the service infrastructure if and when additional funding is available. Because of their wealth of program knowledge, front-line state workers and program advocates are essential participants in this discussion and the effort to improve program performance.

As part of ensuring that sufficient funding is available for the services that Californians want, we should reexamine the state’s tax structure. There are numerous opportunities to raise revenues equitably and in a manner that does little harm to the state’s economy and competitive position. But we must deal with the fact that the state’s current tax structure is antiquated and does not track California’s economy.

Lastly, as many commentators have urged, we should take a hard look at the structural governance issues that, while not the major cause of the current budget shortfall, have been significant contributors to our current problems – issues like ballot-box budgeting and a lack of long-term vision regarding the impact of budget decisions.

Gage is the former director of California’s Department of Finance.

 

Without child care, many women couldn’t work

Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell

By Daniel Weintraub

Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell knows about the importance of child care.

A single working mother herself, until December Mitchell was chief executive officer of a non-profit agency in Los Angeles that helps connect low-income families to child care providers and manages the billing with the state.

In that job, Mitchell fought former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to eliminate funding for a child care program that helps welfare parents transition into the workforce. Known as Stage 3, the program is considered crucial to helping low income parents, mostly mothers, stay off public assistance and earn a living on their own.

Now Mitchell, a former legislative aide, is a legislator herself, representing Los Angeles in the Assembly, and in her new role she is helping to lead the fight to restore funding for that program. Although the state has no money to spare, Mitchell argues that taking away subsidized child care will cost the state more in the long run as women are forced to quit their jobs and the child care providers themselves face economic hardship.

I sat down with her recently in her state Capitol office for a conversation about the importance of Stage 3 child care, the role it plays in keeping parents working, and the effect of eliminating it…

To hear the interview, click here.

NOTE: Assemblywoman Mitchell is co-chair of the Working Families Policy Summit Wednesday in Sacramento.

 

The road to budget hell

This piece is one in a series on the budget by participants in this week’s Working Families Summit.

By Mark Paul

California has spent many years in budget hell. Deficit has followed deficit, alarm has followed alarm. The temptation is strong to greet this year’s news of the budget crisis with a shrug of the shoulders and a yawn: What else is new?

But this year looks different. The two-year budget gap is over $28 billion, the state has piled up debts of more than $85 billion, the gimmicks have been used up, and Washington is turning its back on the fiscal plight of the states. California, a victim of the bizarre and radical governing system it has imposed upon itself, piece by piece, over a century, has seemingly reached a moment of reckoning. It will not get out of budget hell until it makes itself governable.

To understand what’s required to escape budget hell, it helps to know how we got here. There are four big pieces that paved the road to budget damnation:

The Prop 13 operating system. The first of these, you will not be surprised to learn, is Proposition 13. But not in the way you probably think.

Yes, Prop 13 cut property taxes. But its more important long-run effect was to transform how California governs itself. As we show in California Crackup, “By slashing local property tax revenues, putting up higher barriers for local passage of taxes and bonds, and giving the Legislature the authority to divvy up remaining property tax dollars, Prop 13 was the Great Centralizer.”

In the wake of Prop 13, California’s leaders had a choice. They could let local governments readjust to the new fiscal reality of the Jarvis-Gann measure, which has cut local property taxes by the equivalent of 22 percent of local spending by schools, cities, and counties. Or the state could step in and use its own revenue to soften the blow. Then-and-now-again Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature chose to bail out local governments.

California’s new Prop 13 operating system, and the state’s willingness to bail them out, have largely turned local governments into spending agencies. Those elected to run local governments have little control over, or political responsibility for, raising the money they spend. As Bruce Cain and Roger Noll have pointed out, this arrangement “creates perverse incentives…. Because so much of local services are paid for by the state, local officials are in a position to reap the benefits of expanding local services, but state officials bear the political costs of either raising revenues or sacrificing other programs in order to finance expanded local services.”

And that is just what has happened. Compared to other states, California local governments spend more than average, despite local revenues much lower than average. The state has made up the difference, deepening its own budget problems and, as we’ll see in a moment, skewing priorities.

Budget bondage. The second stone on the road to budget hell is made up of all the fiscal provisions, many of them requiring supermajority votes in the Legislature, that litter the state constitution. There is the familiar two-thirds majority vote requirement for passing budgets, which was finally repealed last November. And the state spending limit. And the balanced budget rule. And the rainy day fund in which money must be set aside in good times. And the limits on borrowing, both in the financial markets and from transportation accounts and local government. And the Prop 98 funding guarantee for schools and community colleges. And all the initiatives mandating spending.
But the most critical has been Proposition 13’s two-thirds requirement for raising taxes. Last November voters extended this requirement to fees and to any bill that has the effect of raising any taxpayer’s obligation. There is no similar two-thirds requirement for cutting taxes.

This imbalance creates what I’ve called The Ratchet. This ratchet turns one way only: revenue lost by majority vote can only be restored by supermajorities, which have seldom materialized.

The Ratchet was cranked most furiously during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s. As the hot money from IPOs and stock options flooded in, the Legislature cut the corporate tax, income tax, and, most precipitously, the vehicle license fee, a property tax on vehicles, dubbed the “car tax” by its opponents. When the stock market collapsed in 2001 and the IPO and stock option revenue disappeared, California’s ratcheted-down tax base could no longer support the base of public services. Rather than restore the revenue cut in the good years, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers patched over the gap for most of the last decade with gimmicks and massive borrowing.

But when the second bubble, in housing, burst in 2008, the economy and tax revenues plunged and the permanent hole in California’s budget was again exposed. Closing the hole would have been difficult under any circumstances. But the task was made immeasurably harder by all the supermajority vote requirements.

Something for nothing. Lawmakers are required, in theory at least, to balance the budget. The voters operate under no such discipline. A large part of California’s budget crisis arises out of the bad habit of California voters of enacting what I call “something for nothing” ballot measures. In the two decades beginning with Prop 98’s passage in the spring of 1988, California voters considered 259 ballot measures. Of these, 127 —nearly half —proposed to have something for nothing: that is, they increased spending or reduced taxes, or both, without offsetting funds. Of the 127 measures, 80, or about two-thirds of them, passed. Many of these measures were initiatives, and they came from all points on the political spectrum. There was the Three Strikes sentencing measure and Jessica’s Law and the stem cell agency and the children’s hospital bonds and the park bonds and the water bonds. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger got in on the act with his initiative for afterschool programs in 2002, the prequel for his gubernatorial campaign.

We want, therefore we borrow
. These something for nothing measures contributed to the fourth big source of budget hell, the growing overhang of debt. Over the last decade California voters have approved more debt than in any time in the state’s history. In the traditional fashion, some of these bond measures financed construction of long-term capital projects that benefit the general public, such as school and college buildings. But others were entirely new. The 2004 stem cell bonds are debt taken out to fund an ongoing program. The $15 billion in deficit bonds approved in 2004 papered over the state’s inability to deal with post-recall budget crisis. The infrastructure bonds approved in 2006 broke with the state’s traditional policy of having users and beneficiaries pay for investments in roads and flood control. They instead transferred the cost to the general fund, soaking up dollars formerly available to pay for education, healthcare, and public safety. The percentage of the general fund used for debt service has tripled over the last two decades, to over 6 percent, on its way to a projected 9 percent by 2014.

Where have these pieces left us? With a unworkable fiscal system and badly skewed priorities.

• State general fund spending, measured as a percentage of California personal income, is lower than at any time since Ronald Reagan was governor. California now spends less than the national average on state functions (but is at the top in transferring state dollars to local governments.) Yet because of past tax cuts and the effects of the Great Recession, state revenue, also at a 30-year low as a share of the economy, doesn’t cover the combination of spending on state functions and transfers to local government.

• Without the discipline of having to raise their own tax revenues under the Prop 13 operating system, local governments have let the pay and benefits of their employees soar. As Cain and Noll show, California has only 11.8 percent of local government workers in the country, less than its share, but pays them 15.2 percent of the national payroll for local employees.

• California’s broken system of government has produced a major shift in spending priorities. Over the last 25 years, the share of the state general fund spent on criminal justice, mostly prisons and courts, has gone from 5 percent to 13 percent. Likewise, the share of the state’s output spent on local public safety has soared; state and local government in California is today spending about $10 billion a year more on public safety than if its share were at the same level as in 1989. This extra spending does not buy more public safety services. California cities generally have far fewer police per 100,000 population than elsewhere in the country, and the state has less than its proportionate share of prisoners. No, this $10 billion consists almost entirely of higher compensation for correctional officers, police, and fighters, whose pay and pensions dwarf the compensation public safety employees receive in other states. The gold-plated pay in public safety has come at the expense of higher education, social services, and the fiscal stability of the state.

California’a politics is awash in calls for different budget results: more taxes, less taxes, less prison spending, less debt, lower pensions. But it has not awakened to the fundamental challenge. California doesn’t need just to change budget priorities. It needs to fix the broken system that generates these bad results—that will keep delivering bad results until it is changed.

Mark Paul, co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (University of California Press), is formerly deputy treasurer of California and deputy editorial page editor of the Sacramento Bee. This piece is one in a series on the budget by participants in this week’s Working Families Summit.

 

Brown proposes deep cuts in health, social service programs

By Daniel Weintraub

Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal calls for deep cuts in health and social service programs that form California’s safety net.

Brown wants to cut $1.7 billion from Medi-Cal, 1.5 billion from CalWorks, and $750 million from the Department of Developmental Services.

Brown would limit access to Medi-Cal services, including prescription drugs, and place stricter time limits on welfare. He also proposes to limit reimbursements for home care for people who need help with daily living so they can remain in their homes and not in an institution.

Although many of the cuts Brown proposed mirror those offered in recent years by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and rejected by Democrats in the Legislature, Democratic leaders muted their early reaction. Republicans, meanwhile, praised the spending cuts but attacked the part of Brown’s proposal that would ask the voters to extend billions of dollars in temporary tax increases for another five years.

Without those taxes, the cuts Brown proposed Monday would have to dig twice as deep.

Brown’s Medi-Cal cuts would affect millions of low-income families and people with disabilities. He would limit doctor and clinic visits to 10 per year, limit non-life-saving drugs to six prescriptions per month, and set dollar caps on medical supplies, including wheelchairs, hearing aids, wound care and incontinence supplies.

The governor’s proposal would also charge Medi-Cal patients $100 a day, with a $200 maximum, for hospital stays, a $50 copayment for ER visits and $5 co-pays for trips to a doctor, clinic, dentist or to a pharmacy to fill a prescription.

Brown also proposes to reduce reimbursements to doctors, clinics and hospitals by 10 percent, even though California’s rates already are among the lowest in the country and the change would probably mean even fewer doctors would take Medi-Cal patients.

Finally, Brown’s budget would eliminate adult day care health benefits for 27,000 patients.

In Healthy Families, the subsidized insurance program for low-income working families, Brown proposes to increase monthly premiums by 75 percent for families with incomes between 200 and 250 percent of the federal poverty level and nearly double them for families between 150 percent and 200 percent of the poverty level. These increases would affect more than a half million California children. He would also raise ER co-pays and fees for hospital visits while eliminating vision care for children.

Brown is proposing to reduce welfare grants by 13 percent for a family of three — to $604 per month — and limit a full family’s time on aid to four years, rather than the current five years. Grants for the children only would continue beyond that time frame in many cases. He would also cut grants for aged, blind and disabled couples to the federal minimum.

Brown’s budget would also hit in-home care for the elderly and disabled. He would cut reimbursements by 8 percent across the board and eliminate funding for domestic services, such as housecleaning, shopping and laundry, for recipients who live with their caregiver, typically an adult child. In many cases these families say eliminating such reimbursement would force the relative to enter the private workforce, leaving the disabled person without care or requiring them to get it through the in-home program, potentially costing the state even more.

 

Brown to pursue high risk budget strategy

This is the first in a series of analyses of California’s fiscal crisis, produced in partnership with the Working Families Summit and the California Center for Research on Women and Families.


By Daniel Weintraub

When Gov. Jerry Brown unveils his first proposal to deal with the state’s $28 billion budget shortfall this week, he probably won’t be offering many new ideas. But he will be hoping that a new approach and a different kind of leadership will help him get his plans through a Legislature and a public that were often hostile to his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Like Schwarzenegger, Brown is talking about deep cuts in the health and social service safety net, including reductions in grants to the poor, services to the homebound and health benefits for children in low-income families.

Brown will probably offer no more than the minimum the state constitution requires for kindergarten-through 12th grade education. The state’s public universities will take a whack, forcing them to raise tuition even further.

To find new revenue, Brown reportedly wants to go to the voters to extend temporary tax hikes enacted under Schwarzenegger two years ago, and to unlock some money the voters set aside with ballot measures in years past.

Finally, Brown says he wants to shift some state programs to cities and counties, along with the money to pay for them.

The reason most of this sounds familiar is that there are not too many other options. The state is on a pace to end the current year with a deficit of at least $6 billion and then spend $20 billion more than it will take in next year. The kind of cuts needed to wipe out that shortfall – more than 20 percent on an annual basis – would not be palatable to the people. So Brown is proposing a mix of cuts, new revenue and shifting responsibilities, just as Schwarzenegger did before him.

The big question is whether the Democrats, who now have the power to pass a budget on a majority vote, will be willing to adopt a spending plan that balances without the new revenue they and Brown will be seeking from the voters, most likely in a special election this June. This would be an ugly budget that would cut deeply not just into programs for the poor but into many services that middle-income Californians value highly, including the schools, universities, parks, and local government.

The virtue in this approach, if there is one, is that it would be like a wake-up call to the voters. They would see, for the first time, what level of services they can get within the state’s existing tax laws.

The alternative – adopting a budget that assumes the voters will extend the temporary taxes and thus provide more revenue – would be an easier vote for legislators, but is politically riskier. If the Democrats go to the polls implying that a vote against the taxes will trigger another round of cuts, the voters might well call their bluff, because voters tend not to believe politicians when they say they’ve cut all they can from government programs.

Schwarzenegger took a budget plan to the voters in the spring of 2009 with the support of Democrat and Republican leaders in the Legislature and much of the business community. Brown seems unlikely to have backing as wide as that for the plan he is contemplating now.

Yet if the new governor can explain his plan to the voters, engage them in the conversation, and include them in the process of finding a solution, it is possible he could cobble together a majority of the electorate for what he is proposing. One important constituency that was mostly opposed to Schwarzenegger’s ballot package – public employee unions – would likely support Brown and contribute millions of dollars to the campaign.

But if Brown and his allies do go to the voters in June and lose, the new governor will have spent most of his political capital. At that point he and the Legislature would no choice but to cut spending even further. And those reductions would be unlike anything California has seen before.

 

3.4 million Californians would get coverage through federal reform

By Daniel Weintraub

About 3.4 million Californians who would otherwise be without health insurance will have coverage by 2016 if the federal health reform approved last year is implemented on schedule, according to new research published in the journal Health Affairs.

The boost in coverage would mean that 96 percent of Californians under age 65 who are legal residents in the U.S. would have some form of private or public health insurance, according to the article, by Peter Long, president and chief executive officer of the Blue Shield of California Foundation, and Jonathan Gruber, a health economics expert and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

That would cut the rate of uninsured in the state by more than 50 percent.

The change is expected to mean a major expansion of Medi-Cal, the state’s program for the poor, with 1.7 million additional people enrolling in the program, most of them paid for by the federal government. Another 4 million people are expected to get coverage through a new health exchange that the state will manage as a clearinghouse for private insurance companies offering standardized plans to individuals who can’t get coverage elsewhere.

Another big change anticipated by the authors: employers, especially small employers, will cover fewer people. The paper estimates that about 870,000 fewer people would have their coverage through an employer after the plan is fully implemented. This is the net result of several different factors, including about 1.5 million employees losing their coverage once their employers see that their workers would get a better deal using subsidies to buy insurance through the state-run exchange, while about 900,000 people who had previously turned down coverage from their workplace would now accept it, because of a federal mandate requiring nearly everyone to have insurance.

The authors’ model estimates that about 330,000 Californians who had insurance at the time the law was implemented would lose it, mostly because their employers stopped offering coverage and the individuals could not afford to buy it on their own, even with subsidies from the federal government.

Of those who remain uninsured in 2016, the largest group, about 40 percent, would be undocumented immigrants, who are not eligible for the subsidies under the new law.

Of the rest, about 60 percent would not be subject to the mandate requiring individuals to have coverage, because the costs would exceed 8 percent of their income or their income would be below the threshold triggering a penalty for failure to buy coverage.

Looking at the roll-out of the plan from a regional perspective, Long and Gruber estimated that Los Angeles County would account for about half of the reduction in the number of uninsured in the state. San Diego would see the largest decline in the percentage of its residents without insurance, and would be the only area of the state to see an increase in employer-sponsored coverage.

The authors estimate that the plan would have a $12.6 billion positive impact on California households. This includes $4.8 billion in higher wages that employers would pay instead of health premiums, $4.4 billion in subsidies to people buying coverage through the exchange, and a $3.4 billion increase in state and federal spending on public programs for the poor.

That benefit would be targeted most at low-income households, and in fact, people with very high incomes would see an increase in their costs, according to the paper.

Families with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level would see a benefit averaging about $1,086, thanks to paying lower taxes as part of the law. People with incomes between 133 percent and 199 percent of the federal poverty level would see a gain of about $2,000 per year.

Most middle-income families would see little change in their costs due to the plan. Only families with incomes of 10 times the federal poverty level, or about $220,000 for a family of four, would experience an increase in costs, losing about $3,000 a year because of the higher Medicare payroll tax.

The authors note that $3,000 for a family earning 15 times the poverty level would amount to less than 1 percent of their income, while the $1,086 benefit for a family of four at the poverty level would represent an increase of 5 percent of their annual income.

Note: Access to the full article is restricted on the Health Affairs web site. A link will be provided today through the Blue Shield of California Foundation web site here.

.

 

Brown: All Californians must share the pain in tough times

By Daniel Weintraub

In a short, blunt but largely optimistic inaugural address, Gov. Jerry Brown promised to “speak the truth” about California’s problems and called on his fellow citizens to pull together and sacrifice for the common good of their state.

He said his first budget will be “painful” but “honest,” balancing spending with available tax revenues while shifting power and money from Sacramento to local government and the schools to increase accountability.

“My plan,” Brown said, “represents my best understanding of our real dilemmas and our possibilities. It’s a tough budget for tough times.”

Brown said the cuts he will recommend next week to help erase a $25 billion budget shortfall will cover the spectrum, probably touching on health care, income assistance, parks, universities, prisons and just about every part of state government.

“But choices have to be made and difficult decisions taken,” he said. “At this stage of my life, I have not come here to embrace delay and denial.”

Brown did not go into any details about the cuts he will recommend, but media reports suggest that he will be seeking to revive many of the spending reductions proposed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger but rejected by the Democrats in the Legislature.

That would include cuts to the Healthy Families insurance program for the working poor, monthly grants to the aged, blind and disabled, child care subsidies and in-home care for the elderly and disabled people. Brown also is expected to call a special election in June and ask voters to extend temporary tax increases adopted by the Legislature and Schwarzenegger in 2009.

In his speech, Brown recalled the trips his ancestors took from Europe and across America to reach California, and extolled the state for the virtues that have made it what one author called the “Great Exception.”

To restore that glory, he said, every Californian – especially his fellow lawmakers – must “rise above ideology and partisan interests and find what’s required for the good of California.

“There is no other way forward.”

 

Schwarzenegger’s legacy will likely improve with time

By Daniel Weintraub

As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares to end his second and final term as California’s chief executive Monday, his public approval ratings are at an all-time low, the media are beating him up for his record in office, and few if any of his fellow politicians are rising to his defense.

Schwarzenegger deserves much of the flogging that he’s been absorbing in his final days on the job. But the real story of his seven years as governor is more complex than it appears at first glance. And historians may view his tenure in a better light than those who are judging him based only on the condition of the state and its economy on the day he leaves office.

Schwarzenegger certainly can’t duck responsibility for leaving his successor a budget shortfall bigger than the one he inherited seven years ago. Back then, the Hollywood actor and novice politician belittled Sacramento’s lawmakers as incompetent boobs who couldn’t find a way to balance spending and revenues. But he discovered in office that the job was far more difficult than he had imagined.

Schwarzenegger also gets low marks for wasting an historic mandate that might have let him retool California’s government for the 21st Century.

He could have led a revolution embracing technology to boost productivity and save money – as the private sector has done — while creating a consumer-friendly culture within the government bureaucracy. But instead of giving California a government as good as the high-tech, Web 2.0 industries driving the latest growth in the Silicon Valley, Schwarzenegger promised to “blow up the boxes” on the organization chart, then commissioned a weighty study with hundreds of recommendations that mostly died on arrival in the Legislature. Then he lost interest in the project.

That’s the true tragedy of Schwarzenegger’s time as governor. Although he came into office as an outsider with no experience in elective office, his biggest fault was that he was too tame, too conventional, and too eager to fit in with the governing culture he was elected to upend. Before even taking office, Schwarzenegger attended a welcoming party in Sacramento where he was heard telling lobbyists not to believe all those nasty things he had said about their profession and its special interest patrons during the campaign. His transition team was packed with longtime Capitol insiders, all but ensuring that he would mostly play it safe as governor, to his detriment and the state’s.

But that’s only part of the story. Schwarzenegger, on balance, was probably a better governor than he has been given credit for. And he may look even better a few years from now.

He deserves a lot of credit for tackling big issues that many thought were insoluble, fighting doggedly for goals that others thought were out of reach, and for using executive power and his largely independent status to work, when he could, with members of both parties in the Legislature. For a governor who spent seven years in office without the benefit of a consistent set of allies in either party in the Legislature, he actually accomplished quite a bit.

He was sometimes moderate, trying to split the difference among the partisans on the far left and far right who dominate California’s Capitol. At other times he sided with the Democrats, most famously on a new law to fight global warming, or with the Republicans, on behalf of business interests and employers.

If you judge Schwarzenegger not on how well he achieved your goals, but on how he did reaching his own policy ambitions, he tends to score a lot higher. And several of his most important accomplishments might take years to bear fruit — an unusual kind of legacy in this era of instant gratification and term-limited, short-attention-span lawmaking.

His biggest failure, clearly, was on the budget. He inherited a mess but made it worse by cutting the state’s car tax, although in his defense, this was the signature issue of his first campaign and had he abandoned it, he also would have abandoned all of his credibility as a leader.

His next blunder was to embrace a $15 billion bond to pay off the state’s deficit with borrowed money. This idea might have worked had it been linked to an enforceable spending limit, even a temporary one, that slowed the growth in spending while economic growth allowed revenues to recover. But Schwarzenegger settled for a mostly phony “balanced budget amendment” and a rainy day fund that was riddled with loopholes. He took the two to the voters in an impressive campaign that was a short-term success. But he never lived down his dramatic vow to “cut up” the state’s credit cards, a promise he clearly could not, and did not, keep.

Even so, he almost got the budget balanced before the bottom dropped out of state revenues amid the financial panic of 2008 and the international economic recession that proved to be the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Tax revenues in the state’s general fund have dropped by $8 billion during the past three years, easily the largest and longest decline in tax receipts in the past 50 years, if not in the history of the state. Even California had entered that economic decline in good shape, the state’s budget still would have been plunged back into the red. Unfortunately, it was already there when the recession began.

In the face of that crisis, Schwarzenegger managed to cobble together bipartisan support for the earliest budget in recent memory, a February 2009 agreement that included historic spending cuts, temporary tax increases and budget reform. But the full plan required voter approval to take effect, and the voters rejected the final two years of the temporary taxes, dooming the reforms, which were linked to the higher revenues. Schwarzenegger did a good job designing that package but a terrible job communicating its worth and importance to a cynical public, and voters never understood that their involvement was required for any policy changes big enough to transform the state’s budget reality.

But Schwarzenegger kept pushing. In October, 2010, in his final budget, he won approval from the Legislature for yet another reform plan — a rainy day fund that would have teeth and could eventually build a reserve of 10 percent of the state’s general fund. The new plan also requires the Legislature to set aside unexpected spikes in revenue of the kind for which California has become famous.

In the same budget deal, Schwarzenegger persuaded the Democrats to agree to pension reform that will roll back richer benefits enacted in 1999, at the height of the dot-com boom. The rollback will save the state billions of dollars over the next several decades.

Along the way, he also got Democrats to repeal automatic cost-of-living increases that were built into many government grants. Even if you think the recipients need those increases to keep pace with rising prices, it makes sense for legislators to make that decision annually based on all of the state’s priorities rather than have the increases take effect automatically, adding to the government’s projected deficit.

Schwarzenegger was also a big supporter of new constitutional rules that will keep state lawmakers from shifting local tax revenue among the cities, counties and schools, and he supported other new laws to ensure that money set aside for transportation projects is not used for other purposes. These laws make it harder for the Legislature to balance the budget, but they are popular with voters who want to know where their tax dollars are going and prefer local control over decision-making in the Capitol.

Beyond the budget, Schwarzenegger will be remembered most for his advocacy of global warming legislation that requires the state to reduce its emission of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. Although Democrats and environmentalists complain that Schwarzenegger was a late-comer to this cause and then stole the credit for its passage, he actually used an executive order to put the state on course to reduce its emissions, brought the law international attention and then defended it fiercely in the face of a ballot initiative that sought to suspend its implementation. No one knows if the law, known as AB 32, will trigger a boom in green-energy jobs here or become another burden on the state’s fragile economy, but Schwarzenegger believed in the idea, made it happen and has implemented it faithfully.

But that was only of the fronts on which he was active and successful. Some of the others:

–Early in his term he used the threat of a ballot initiative to win changes in the state’s system that compensates workers injured on the job. California had some of the lowest benefits but the highest costs to business, and the bipartisan plan trimmed costs so much that many Democrats later regretted voting for it, trying to repeal a law they had once embraced.

–Schwarzenegger’s leadership prompted the Legislature to pass $37 billion in bond measures on the 2006 ballot, which the voters approved. Although the annual debt service on the bonds is expensive, they are paying for much needed improvements to roads, schools and other public works. Repairs to the weak levee system in the Sacramento River delta might prevent a Katrina-type flood in Northern California, a disaster averted that no politician, including Schwarzenegger, will ever get credit for.

–Schwarzenegger was a champion of political reform, and he helped pave the way for two big changes that should alter California politics over the next decade. One was the creation of an independent commission to draw new political boundaries after the census, taking that job out of the hands of incumbent legislators, who had an interest in skewing the lines to benefit themselves and their allies. The other reform was the open primary, which will allow California voters to choose among all candidates in the first round of the election, regardless of party, with the top two finishers moving on to the finals. The two changes combined might result in the addition of more moderates to the Legislature, giving future centrist governors a few more potential allies to work with.

–Although he never delivered on a promise of major education reforms, Schwarzenegger did accomplish two important goals he expressed during his first campaign for office. First, he loosened the strings on state money going to the schools, giving local districts more authority over how they spend their budgets. Second, he was a strong defender of parental choice, supporting independent charter schools and, in a move that got national attention, giving parents the right to convert low-performing schools into charter schools free of central district control.

–After years of badgering, he cajoled the Legislature into supporting a compromise that could improve the state’s water supply while also protecting the environment, especially the sensitive wetlands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. If it wins voter approval in 2012, the plan will produce the most significant change in the state’s water system since the construction of the state water project in the 1960s.

A common thread runs through most of these accomplishments: they favor the long term over short-run thinking and results. At some point during his tenure, Schwarzenegger realized that the annual budget fights with the Legislature, while perhaps necessary, were mostly futile. About the best a governor and lawmakers could do under the present circumstances is to tread water and try to avoid making things worse. The annual fights were mostly along the margins, how to spend, or cut, the last dollars in the treasury.

Although Schwarzenegger, by cutting the car tax and giving business billions in unnecessary tax breaks, definitely worsened the deficit, he also used the shortfalls to win important long-term reforms that should help keep future budgets balanced once the red ink finally stops flowing.

And on other issues, from flood control to water policy, political reform to prisons, Schwarzenegger overcame partisan polarization to fashion policies that will give him a lasting effect on the state long after he leaves the Capitol and returns to Hollywood and the international stage.

 
 
 

Home | Cal Health Report | Community Report | Legislation | Ideas | Forums | About Us

©2012 HealthyCal.org