Broad Alliance of Advocates, Legislators Prevent Targeting of Immigrants

Through hard work and determination, a broad alliance of advocacy organizations, community based service providers, and legislators prevented immigrants from being specifically targeted for disproportionate cuts in the most recent budget battle. Among the programs that were targeted for elimination but were preserved in the recent agreements are the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants, (CAPI), the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) and Full-Scope Medi-Cal Services for lawful immigrants. Although advocates for California's low-income communities have little to celebrate as the state's financial crisis continues, we thank the organizations and individuals who stood firm in the face of efforts to eliminate some critical human service programs for immigrants in California.

Background on 2009-10 Budget

As a result of the fiscal emergency facing California, Governor Schwarzenegger delivered a budget proposal to a special session of the legislature on December 31, 2008. The proposal contained a mix of cuts to services, increases in revenues, and borrowing, and was geared to serve the state through the 2010 budget, lengthening the normal budget year by five months.

This budget was passed by the legislature in the early morning hours of February 19th and signed by the Governor soon thereafter. In order to secure enough Republican votes for the budget, several non-budget items were negotiated that will go to the ballot and could have a profound effect on the state's spending in years to come if enacted.

After a month and a half of negotiations, the legislature was able to adopt a budget with revenue increases included as part of the budget plan. The legislature addressed the state's budget gap by approving:

$14.9 in spending reductions
$12.5 billion in tax increases
$5.4 billion in borrowing

In addition to actions taken by the legislature, Governor Schwarzenegger made $947 million in cuts to state spending through line item vetoes.

What did the cuts include?

While the Governor had originally proposed deep cuts in health and human services, particularly in programs that serve immigrants, the cuts enacted were not as dire as originally anticipated. However, these cuts still affect the half million individuals who rely on CalWORKS and the 1.26 million Californians who rely on SSI/SSP.

$79.1 million from suspension of the July 2009 CalWORKs Cost of Living Adjustment: Absent a grant cut, which is also proposed by the Governor, the maximum monthly grant for a family of three would remain at $723 in high-cost counties.
$594.1 million from suspension of the June 2010 SSI/SSP COLA: Suspends the June 1, 2010 cost-of-living adjustment for SSI/SSP and does not take up the federal SSI COLA.

Futher cuts will be enacted depending on the timing and amount of funds that the state will receive from the federal stimulus package:

The federal government has allocated funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the economic stimulus bill, to assist the state with health care, social services, and education payments. If California receives more than $10 billion from the federal government, certain cuts will not be enacted. The Director of Finance and the state Treasurer will meet prior to April 1, 2009 to determine whether the projected federal assistance is enough to prevent the additional cuts from going into effect.

As it stands, the Governor's administration has conservatively estimated our share of the federal stimulus that would replace General Fund spending to be $8.4 billion. Only certain federal stimulus funds can replace General Funds spending, such as FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Percentages) and State Fiscal Stabilization. Dollars that are allocated to infrastructure, unemployment benefits, and tax relief do not count towards California's $10 billion goal. If the state does not receive the $10 billion in economic stimulus, then the following cuts will be triggered:

$146.9 million reduction to CalWORKS grants by 4 percent: This proposal would further reduce the incomes of children of low wage-earning immigrant parents.

$267.8 million from a reduction to SSI/SSP monthly grant levels: Individual SSI recipients grants would decrease by $20 a month; couples' grants would be reduced by $35 a month. This would affect CAPI recipients as well, who would see their monthly assistance payments decrease. This could force some individuals to choose between paying rent, utility bills or other necessities, or eating a nutritious diet.

$78 million by capping In-Home Support Services wages: The Governor proposes to reduce the state's contribution to IHSS wages and benefits to $9.50 per hour of work, plus $0.60 an hour for benefits. Immigrants comprise 40% of IHSS caseworkers - IHSS is often their first entry-level job. Cuts in wages to IHSS workers will harm immigrant workers, particularly in urban areas where wages can barely cover the high cost of living. Cuts in wages and benefits will further decrease the number of well-qualified IHSS workers and impede the ability of recipients to retain skilled workers.

$129.4 million from the elimination of certain benefits for adults enrolled in Medi-Cal: This would eliminate dental care and other Medi-Cal benefits for about 3 million adults, including audiology and speech therapy, acupuncture, chiropractic services, optometry, podiatry, and psychological services, and incontinence creams and washes. Immigrant adults enrolled in full-scope Medi-Cal would be affected.

Voters will make the final decision on several non-budget items that could affect California's spending in future years. These were issues negotiated by lawmakers during the budget process but that need voter approval in order to become law.

The first is a proposal to cap spending on state services - Prop 1A. Prop 1A is a Constitutional provision that would limit spending by the amount of revenue that can be appropriated for General Fund purposes. Each year, the Department of Finance would forecast a revenue amount derived from the last ten years of revenue growth, with revenues over that amount going into a new "rainy day" fund, called the "Budget Stabilization Fund". Dollars in this fund could only be used only under certain stringent circumstances, effectively locking up money that could be used on healthcare, social services and education. Moreover, keying a spending cap to one of the worst recessions in recent history could severely impede the state budget from evolving to effectively reflect the economic challenges of future years.

The second is a proposal to redirect funds approved for children's services and mental health programs under previous state initiatives, to similar programs that are currently supported with General Fund revenues. This proposal would result in Props 1D and 1E, affecting children's services and mental health programs, respectively. This proposal is complex because it changes the funding process for services under Prop 10 and Prop 63, measures that have been self-sustaining since they rely on earmarked funds from tobacco taxes and a 1% tax on upper income Californians. Using these funds to support programs that are currently not included under Prop 10 and Prop 63 could have a harmful effect overall on services for children and for mental health services in California.

The third proposal would call for "open primaries" that would allow voters from all party registrations to vote in primary elections for congressional and state-elected offices. California currently has a "modified" closed primary system that permits unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters to participate in a primary election if authorized by an individual party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State. There have been legal challenges to similar attempts to hold open primaries.

Conclusion

While legislators, advocates, and service providers were glad to see a budget signed, many questions concerning the future funding of social programs and the safety net through the budget process remain unanswered. The special election on May 19th will include several spending and accounting measures that will have long-term affects on the budget process. In fact, results from the special election could have a substantial impact on California's fiscal environment. If the ballot measures pass, legislators could be greatly limited in the way they spend state funds, particularly with regards to social services, health care and education. If the ballot measures do not pass, the state's prospects for securing the revenue it needs to close future budget deficits could become even more dismal, forcing lawmakers and the Governor to consider deeper spending cuts. Advocates need to be apprised of this situation as it changes. Please stay tuned for regular updates on the budget from CIPC and our allies.

A STATE WIDE PARTNERSHIP OF: APALC (Asian Pacific American Legal Center, CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles,
NILC (National Immigration Law Center, SIREN (Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network)