March 9, 2010
Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposal to eliminate the Healthy Families Program would increase the number of California children without health coverage by more than 1 million. This is the second year that the Governor has suggested such a drastic cut to children’s health coverage programs. Healthy Families provides low-cost health, vision, and dental coverage to children in families with modest incomes, below 250 percent of the federal poverty line or about $46,000 for a family of three. Were it not for Healthy Families, many of these children would be uninsured.
In analyses of the Governor’s proposals, we note that if Healthy Families is eliminated, California would lose $826.3 million in federal matching funds. The analyses include estimates by county and legislative district of how many children would lose coverage and the dollars lost to local communities as a result of the proposed reductions. The analysis also documents the local impact of other reductions proposed, such as the elimination of vision benefits, restricted eligibility, and increased premiums.
In Los Angeles County, approximately 266,000 children could lose coverage if Healthy Families is eliminated. Rural counties would also be hard hit. For instance, more than 14 percent of children in Shasta County were enrolled in Healthy Families in 2007, the most recent year for which data are available.
Since the recession began, enrollment in Healthy Families has climbed, ensuring that children can still see a doctor if they get sick, or obtain eyeglasses if they cannot see the blackboard. Research shows that after two years in the Healthy Families Program, children initially considered “at risk” saw sharp improvements in their ability to pay attention in class, as well as their ability to keep up with school activities. Reducing or eliminating programs such as Healthy Families at a time of growing need could further undermine California’s ability to climb out of recession.
– Hanh Kim Quach and Raul Macias
Leave a Comment » | 
Human Services & Child Care, State Budget | Tagged: children's heath coverage, Healthy Families Program | 
Permalink
Posted by cbporg
March 8, 2010
We’ve been blogging for more than a year now, and we’ve noticed that our posts listing upcoming committee hearings are particularly well-read. As a result, we hope to start blogging regularly about upcoming hearings that may be of interest. Two this week in the State Capitol in Sacramento are worth noting:
Tomorrow, March 9, the Senate Human Services Committee will tackle the issue, “Maximizing Federal Funds for Human Services.” The hearing will be held in Room 4203 from 1:30-4:30 p.m. For more background on this issue, check out our recent report, What Has the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Meant for California?
On Wednesday, March 10, the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee will take another look at the state’s Enterprise Zone Program, which provides hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to businesses located in certain areas of the state. The hearing will begin at 1:30 in Room 3191. If you follow our work, you know that we’ve blogged extensively about the ineffectiveness of these zones and published a report on the subject back in 2006. We’re not alone; there’s a veritable chorus of enterprise zone criticism. The PPIC published a report concluding that the tax breaks don’t increase employment and actually reduce the number of businesses located within zones and report co-author David Neumark will be a featured witness at Wednesday’s hearing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has also weighed in on enterprise zones.
As California faces another budget deficit, legislators are presented with another opportunity to review, scale back, or eliminate ineffective tax breaks that don’t deliver on their promises. The Enterprise Zone Program costs California hundreds of millions of dollars every year – precious funding that could be going to our schools, universities, or other programs that serve the common good.
– Lisa Gardiner
Comments Off | Federal Budget & Taxes, State Budget, Workforce & Economic Development | Tagged: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, enterprise zones, federal funding | Permalink
Posted by cbporg
March 5, 2010
Yesterday, we released a new report on the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) in California. The report shows that while the ARRA has buffered the impact of the recession on California since it was enacted in February 2009, most of the ARRA’s funding – including assistance to help states avert or mitigate the impact of budget cuts – expires in 2010 or soon thereafter. Additional federal funds are needed to assist struggling workers and their families and to help California avoid another round of deep budget cuts.
Fortunately, the prospects for extending several key provisions of the ARRA are looking brighter on Capitol Hill. Next week, the Senate will reportedly take up a bill to assist more laid-off workers by providing extended unemployment insurance benefits and subsidies to help cover the cost of health premiums to workers who lose a job between April and December 2010. The bill also would extend the ARRA’s additional federal funding for states’ Medicaid programs through June 2011. Senators also are expected to vote on an amendment to expand and extend – through March 2011 – the special federal fund that has helped California create thousands of jobs for low-income families and pay for rising costs in CalWORKs, the state’s welfare-to-work program.
Keeping these critical ARRA provisions going would be good news for California’s families and the state budget at a time when good news is sorely needed.
– Scott Graves
Comments Off | Federal Budget & Taxes | Tagged: ARRA, ECF, subsidized jobs, unemployment insurance | Permalink
Posted by cbporg
March 4, 2010
Why are students, parents, and educators across the state protesting cuts to education when Governor Schwarzenegger claims that his Proposed Budget protects classroom spending? Part of the answer lies in the complex formula used to calculate the Proposition 98 guarantee, the provision in the state’s constitution that guarantees a minimum level of funding for California’s schools and community colleges.
Under the assumptions presented in the Governor’s 2010-11 Proposed Budget, Proposition 98 spending on K-12 education would drop from $50.3 billion in 2007-08 to an estimated $44.1 billion in 2009-10 – a decline of 12.4 percent. The drop in the Proposition 98 guarantee is due in large part to falling state revenues resulting from the continued economic downturn. The Governor claims he is “protecting education.” However, this claim is based on several assumptions that would reduce the minimum funding level required by the Proposition 98 guarantee in 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 relative to the funding level required under the assumptions used to develop the budget agreement signed by the Governor in July 2009. In fact, the Legislative Analyst reported recently that under current law, the Proposition 98 guarantee would be $2.2 billion higher in 2009-10 and $3.2 billion higher in 2010-11 than the level provided by the Governor’s 2010-11 Proposed Budget. Under the Governor’s proposal, schools would receive $7,418 per student in 2010-11, nearly $1,500 less than they did in 2007-08, after adjusting for inflation. Maybe that’s why students, parents, and educators protesting today are skeptical about the Governor’s claims.
– Jonathan Kaplan
Comments Off | Education | Tagged: K-12 education, Per-pupil spending, Proposition 98, Student protests | Permalink
Posted by cbporg
March 3, 2010
Last week we blogged about the deeply flawed report, Cost of State Regulations on California Small Businesses Study, which prominent economists called “schlock science” and “devoid of anything resembling intellectual content.” It turns out that the authors of this report wrote another highly suspect report – Cost of AB 32 on California Small Businesses. An analysis by a Stanford professor, James L. Sweeney, concluded that this report’s “estimates are highly biased, are based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis, and are likely to be too large.” Another analysis, by UCLA Professor Matthew E. Kahn, found that the AB 32 report’s estimates are “fatally flawed,” and an analysis by Tufts University Professor Frank Ackerman calls both the state regulations report and the AB 32 report “unsound and unreliable economic analysis.”
Excuse us for flogging what should be a dead horse, but as an organization that does its best to maintain high research standards, we find it troubling when others do not.
– Alissa Anderson and Jean Ross
Comments Off | State Budget | Tagged: AB 32, research, state regulations | Permalink
Posted by cbporg
