topnav

Home Issues & Campaigns Agency Members Community News Contact Us

Community News

Open dialogue among community members is an important part of successful advocacy. Take Action California believes that the more information and discussion we have about what's important to us, the more empowered we all are to make change.

Showing posts with label spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spending. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Jerry Brown Creates California Surplus Miracle, But Can It Last?

Something close to a civic miracle seems to have occurred—at least on the surface.

California has long been synonymous with budget deficits so deep that it looked like the Golden State would inevitably be our Greece—beautiful and bankrupt.
But Gov. Jerry Brown announced that his state has suddenly projected a surplus of $851 million. Two years ago, when Brown came back into office, the state had a $25.4 billion deficit, a Sisyphean problem Governor Arnold struggled with unsuccessfully all last decade.
This reversal of fortune raises a lot of questions. What caused California’s budget turnaround? Is it sustainable? And finally, could there be a national lesson here as Washington tries to confront deficits and debt?
The top-line takeaway is that a balanced deficit-reduction approach seems to have worked in the Golden State. When he entered office in 2011, Brown proposed billion-dollar-plus cuts in welfare and Medi-Cal, as well as $500 billion from the UC system.
All told, his initial proposed budget was almost $20 billion less than Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2008–09 budget, which clocked in at $103 billion. Democrats and unions howled, and Brown’s ultimate budget was less austere than originally advertised, but deep cuts were enacted.
Crucially, Brown also took on the unpopular task of raising taxes—winning a 2012 ballot fight sonorously known as Proposition 30 and 39—that raised sales taxes and closed business tax loopholes. Next year, the combined new revenues are expected to exceed $5.8 billion.
The final factor is an improving economy—always the decisive X factor in deficit-reduction efforts. California’s economy is improving slowly, but the shift from the pit of the Great Recession moved the numbers in the right direction.
The result of increased tax revenues and spending cuts is that—at least for now—a projected deficit has been turned into a surplus.
This is good news. But not everyone is happy. And the numbers do sidestep a deeper problem.
Remember, deficits and debt are different things. Projected year-to-year deficits are comparatively easy to close, especially on the back of an improving economy. But out-of-control debt is ultimately what drags you down.
The Los Angeles Times offered a front-page reality check, under the headline “Debt a Cloud Over State’s Future,” pointing out the inconvenient fact that California “has accumulated a crushing load of debt for retiree pensions and healthcare now totaling more than taxpayers spend each year on all state programs combined.” Ouch.
Brown’s budget does begin to pay down the debt, but the outstanding amount dwarfs the pay-down. Of course, that hasn’t stopped liberal activists from demanding more money be spent immediately on social services, under the banner of “investment.”
Moreover, there are real questions about whether the increased tax burden—especially on the wealthy—will end up eroding the state’s tax base in the near future.
“There’s some doubt that high income taxpayers won’t either move to Nevada—or some other low or no-income tax state—or find other ways, such as delaying realization of cap gains, to avoid hefty new surtaxes—especially since their federal taxes are also increasing,” emails the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters. “California’s marginal income tax rate (federal plus state) is now highest in U.S. at highest level, about 52 percent.”
But Walters acknowledges that Brown’s budget miracle is more or less legitimate, at least for now. “It’s mostly new revenue from sales and income tax hike approved by voters in November with a dash of economic recovery and a smidgen of creative bookkeeping such as slowing down some debt repayment and assuming renewal of a tax on health care providers to trigger some federal aid,” Walters’ continues. “But overall it’s mostly the new taxes.”
Other Golden State observers take an even more skeptical view. “There is a reason Gov. Brown is known as Governor Moonbeam,” says KABC’s center-right John Phillips. “Structural deficits are everywhere, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says there’s still a $1.9 billion budget deficit, and rich people can’t cross the state line fast enough—taking revenues down almost 11 percent since the passage of his Prop 30 tax hikes with them. On the plus side, hey, we’re not Detroit!”
The Rust Belt does have problems that make California’s cyclical deficits and deep legislative dysfunction seem comparatively easy to solve. But Jerry Brown deserves credit for pulling off at least short-term success in a state budget situation that had many experts calling impossible to solve. In the near term, the deficit turned surplus highlights the improving national economic environment.
It also provides a compelling object lesson for advocates of a “balanced approach” for reducing deficits, like President Obama & Co. Contrary to conservative talking points about how revenue is not a legitimate part of deficit-reduction solutions—instead, it’s all spending cuts all the time—California’s recent example shows that increased tax rates can help rapidly reduce deficits. Moreover, especially compared with much of Europe, the Obama administration’s decision not to simply pursue a path of deep austerity cuts seems to have been the wiser path, at least for now.
But conservatives could have the last laugh if the wealthiest Californians decide to flee the state for comparatively low-tax climes, like a sun-baked GĂ©rard Depardieu.
Bottom line: This fight ain’t over. But at least for the moment, Jerry Brown’s balanced if painful plan to turn deep deficits into a modest surplus deserves study. It offers a rare glimpse of good news in the relentlessly bleak world of state budget. Whether it is sustainable remains to be seen.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Calif. budget debate turns to spending, not cuts


Gov. Jerry Brown is preparing a spending plan as California faces its most optimistic financial outlook in years, yet the Democratic governor's intention to stick with a frugal fiscal agenda could put him on a collision course with Democratic lawmakers who seek to restore state services lost during the recession.
After years of deep spending cuts to education, health and social programs, Brown and California lawmakers will be debating this year how to spend the state's money rather than battling over what to cut.
Brown will release his budget proposal Thursday for the 2013-14 fiscal year, which begins July 1. He is expected to boost education funding by at least $2 billion, as he promised during his campaign for Proposition 30. The November initiative's sales and income tax increases are expected to generate $6 billion a year.
But he also said this week that "2013 is the year of fiscal discipline and living within our means, and I'm going to make sure that happens."
The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst has pegged the 2013-14 budget deficit at $1.9 billion, a vast turnaround from the double-digit deficits of the last several years. The Legislature is required by law to approve a balanced budget by June 15, which will still force lawmakers to cut some areas of spending to close the deficit.
Brown is likely to face some of his biggest challenges this year from fellow Democrats, who now hold two-thirds majorities in the Assembly and Senate and are eager to restore spending to a host of programs after years of cuts. Brown is more fiscally conservative than many Democratic lawmakers, favoring restoring school funding and building a robust rainy day fund over expanding services.
"People want to have more child care, they want to have more people locked up, they want to have more rehab, more, more, more. More judges, more courtrooms. We have to live within reasonable limits," Brown said in a Capitol news conference this week.
The legislative analyst's office has projected that the state will spend nearly $56 billion of a $94 billion general fund budget on education in the 2013-14 fiscal year, about $2 billion more than last year. That money comes partly through a voter-approved education funding guarantee that requires the state to spend more on schools when tax revenue rises.
"You can take this to the bank: We're not going to spend money that we can't afford to spend," Brown said. "We have to do more with less; that's just the way life is."
Like Brown, the analyst's office has also cautioned that the state's rosy forecast is dependent upon maintaining the strict spending limits of the past few years.
Still, the added revenue from the voter-approved tax increases allow the governor and lawmakers to begin to tinker with school funding formulas, which Brown is expected to address in his budget.
His administration advocates scrapping a series of dedicated funds aimed at addressing specific issues. Instead, he favors freeing school districts to spend that money in areas they deem most important.
Brown's proposed school formula also is intended to target spending to the neediest students, which is likely to draw opposition from parents and teachers in more prosperous areas.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he is open to Brown's school funding proposal. He said the goal is laudable, but there will be a lot of details to work out.
"How do you make sure, without micromanaging, that the kids that need help the most get the help that they need?" Steinberg said. "How do you make sure that the proven approaches to improving student achievement and helping kids graduate are funded?"
The legislative analyst projected last fall that the state's overall general fund spending would be about $94 billion, nearly 8 percent more than in 2012. California's general fund spending hit a high of $103 billion during the 2007-08 budget, the year the recession began, falling to a low of $87 billion in the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Still, some expenses will grow in the short term, although the analyst said they are likely to be outpaced by higher revenue in the long term. For example, more Californians are expected to sign up for Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for the poor, as states prepare to implement the federal health care reform law.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/09/3127418/calif-budget-debate-turns-to-spending.html#storylink=cpy

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Corporate Taxes on Table in Cliff Talks

By DAMIAN PALETTAJANET HOOK and CAROL E. LEE—Jared A. Favole contributed to this article.
Via the Wall Street JournalThe White House has told Republicans it would include an overhaul of the corporate-tax code as part of any deal to reduce the deficit, people familiar with the talks said, a move to court business groups as budget negotiations intensify.

Corporate taxes hadn't until now been part of budget talks aimed at averting spending cuts and tax increases set for January. Much of the focus has instead been on the expiring individual income-tax rates.

The offer from the White House came amid a fresh round of proposals from both sides, as President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner exchanged counteroffers to address the so-called fiscal cliff. Big gaps remain between Democratic and Republican negotiators, and while talks are continuing, there is no guarantee a deal will be struck, with or without a corporate-tax revamp.

On Wednesday, Mr. Boehner criticized Mr. Obama's latest plan, saying it is unbalanced by focusing too much on tax increases. "His plan does not begin to solve our debt crisis; it actually increases spending," Mr. Boehner said.

The White House's corporate-tax suggestion wasn't specific, according to officials familiar with the offer, other than committing to overhaul the corporate tax code in 2013. White House officials, in making the suggestion, cited a corporate-tax plan the administration unveiled in February but said they weren't wedded to any specifics.

Left unclear is the crucial question of how any revamp would affect companies' overall tax burden. That is one reason why Republicans considered it a tactical offer only, and not one that might help seal a deal.

As part of its budget proposal, the White House also slightly lowered its target for new tax revenue to $1.4 trillion, down from Mr. Obama's initial offer of $1.6 trillion, officials said. It retained items from an earlier offer that had irked Republicans, included new stimulus spending and an increase in the U.S.'s borrowing limit.

Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, responded Tuesday with a proposal that wasn't "dramatically" different from the one he made to the White House last week, according to an official familiar with the talks, who declined to elaborate.

The flurry of activity showed the talks were moving along, albeit haltingly. Messrs. Boehner and Obama discussed the negotiations by phone Tuesday evening. The White House in recent days also has been talking with Democratic leaders about the types of spending cuts that might accompany any deal, to calm increasing queasiness in the party over the direction of the talks.

In a brief update on the House floor earlier Tuesday, Mr. Boehner asked, "Where are the president's spending cuts?" He added: "We are still waiting for the White House to identify what specific cuts the president is willing to make." He accused the White House of "slow-walking" the talks. Republicans viewed the White House's latest offer as not that different from its first—heavy on new taxes and light on ideas to trim spending.

Political reaction to the corporate-tax idea split along party lines. A senior Democratic aide described the addition as a smart way of making concessions without having to touch entitlement programs.

Republicans said they didn't consider the move a concession at all, given their assumption that the corporate tax code would be tackled at some point. "It's a red herring," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. He said keeping individual rates low was a more immediate priority because of its impact on small businesses, many of which aren't structured as corporations, and whose owners pay taxes through the individual tax system.

The White House earlier this year proposed lowering the corporate rate to 28% from 35%, and even lower for manufacturing companies. Lower rates would be combined with eliminating some tax deductions in the White House plan, with the net effect being that the tax burden on companies would remain about the same. But it would be a simpler and clearer system, which many CEOs have sought.

Many Republicans have offered similar proposals, though their proposals call for lowering the corporate rate to 25%. Neither plan gained any traction.

An overhaul of the corporate-tax code came up repeatedly during Mr. Obama's recent meetings to discuss the fiscal cliff with chief executives at the White House. Some CEOs signaled a willingness to accept higher individual tax rates to bring in more revenue, but they said the corporate code needed to be redrawn because it hurt U.S. competitiveness. By agreeing to include an overhaul of the corporate-tax code as part of these discussions, the White House could be trying to further attract business groups to its deficit-reduction plan.Democrats and Republicans involved in the cliff talks are trying to design a two-phase timetable. If a deal is reached, it would lock in some changes to taxes and spending rules by the end of 2012 and then require a number of more significant changes next year to entitlement programs and the tax code. The White House's corporate-tax plan would fit into the second phase, giving lawmakers, White House officials and business groups time to work through the details.
The White House's February proposal to redesign the corporate tax code received a lukewarm reception from business groups. Many were supportive of the proposal to lower rates but worried about which industries might get hurt by an accompanying elimination of tax breaks. Many large businesses were also unhappy the White House didn't back a proposal to shield profits from foreign affiliates from U.S. taxation.

Still, business groups saw that early proposal as a starting point, and hoped it would lead to a comprehensive deal, a point several echoed on Tuesday during a conference call organized by the Business Roundtable trade group.

"Start at wiping out all of the deductions, figuring out where that tax rate is—whether it's 25%, 22%, 15%, whatever it is," said Douglas Oberhelman, the chief executive of construction-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. CAT +0.71% "I think all of us are on that wavelength today to begin the process."

Corporate income taxes make up about 10% of revenue collected by the government. In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the government received $2.449 trillion in revenue, with $242 billion of that coming from corporate income taxes.

Big differences remain between the two sides, and in public the Republicans and Democrats continued to hammer at each others' ideas.

The administration's new proposal made no major concessions on entitlements such as Medicare, which it is withholding until Republicans give up ground on tax rates. Republicans likewise want first to see more details on spending cuts.

The Business Roundtable for the first time Tuesday backed the possibility of higher tax rates as part of a broader package of changes to reduce the deficit. The group previously called for extending all the Bush-era tax rates.

John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, an influential trade group that represents large corporations, said he thought a proposal to overhaul the corporate tax code would be well-received by Democrats and Republicans, but wouldn't be enough to replace Republican demands for spending cuts. Still, he said it would help expand the scope of the package, which could ultimately draw more backers.

A small but growing number of Republicans have argued that the party should give up on blocking any rate increase on higher-income Americans and instead shift focus to securing spending cuts as part of the deal.

Some Democrats regard Republicans' eventual concession on taxes as a foregone conclusion, and they have begun to talk among themselves about which concessions on entitlement programs they might be asked to make.

The three leading proposals floated by Republicans include increasing the eligibility age for Medicare, requiring wealthier people to pay more for Medicare and changing the formula for calculating Consumer Price Index adjustments to slow the growth of Social Security benefits.Many Democrats are especially concerned about looming Medicare cuts if they include a GOP proposal to raise the eligibility age. "If people are working in coal mines in West Virginia, it's really inhumane to talk about raising the eligibility age," said House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who is close to Mr. Obama. "For those of us in air-conditioned offices to talk about raising the age, that's fine for us to say."

Many Democrats acknowledge that any deficit-reduction package will include proposals they don't like. "There's no way to do this without both sides giving up something," said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.).

Administration officials have been engaged in conversations with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to bring them along as Mr. Obama negotiates with Mr. Boehner. Those conversations have picked up in recent days as the White House takes soundings from Democratic leaders on what might be possible for the party to stomach in a final deal.

Republicans are frustrated that they haven't secured larger spending-cut commitments from Mr. Obama in exchange for what they see as a major and early concession from Mr. Boehner on tax revenue, said people familiar with the talks.

In his speech Tuesday, Mr. Boehner argued that Mr. Obama's proposed tax increase barely scratches the surface of the deficit problem.

"Even if we did exactly what the president wants, we would see red as far as the eye can see," Mr. Boehner told the House. Aides said Mr. Boehner decided to make the speech because he believed recent reports of tentative progress in his talks with Mr. Obama played down differences that remain on spending.

The White House rejected Mr. Boehner's complaint that Mr. Obama hadn't put forward detailed spending cuts.

"What we haven't seen from Republicans to this day is a single specific proposal on revenue," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "And in fact, we've seen less specificity from Republicans on spending cuts than the president himself has proposed."


Friday, March 23, 2012

San Bernardino cuts record 251 certificated employees






SAN BERNARDINO - The school board voted after midnight Wednesday to eliminate a record 251 positions from next year's budget.



The lion's share of those jobs are elementary school teachers, with the equivalent of 115 full-time K-6 teaching positions cut from the San Bernardino City Unified School District's 2012-13 budget.

Board members voted to send preliminary layoff notices to certificated employees - an employee classification that consists of positions such as teachers and counselors - so they could make a legally required March 15 deadline, but they hope many of those positions will be restored if the budget outlook later improves.

"This was not why I ran for this position, and we're not taking pleasure, any one of us, in what we're doing," board member Bobbie Perong said. "I'm just hoping for a better time when we can say we're adding teachers, not taking them away."

That depends on union negotiations, among other things, but districts are often able to bring back many employees who are initially told their job will be cut. The board sent layoff notices to 210 teachers this time last year - a record at the time - and brought back 88 by June.

Wednesday's cut stemmed from a proposal approved two weeks ago that entailed eliminating 136 certificated positions along with 103 other jobs as part of an effort to cut nearly $22 million from the budget.

But those 136 jobs ballooned to 251 because of changing projections since the last board meeting, including smaller- than-expected enrollment.

"I was not expecting a number this large," board President Barbara Flores told Harold J. Vollkommer, who prepared the recommendation. "When I was reading this, I was calling you names."

Vollkommer, the assistant superintendent of human resources, said he expected the number to decrease significantly by mid-April as employees accept early retirement packages and to further decline later. But he added himself to the list of people unhappy with the decision.

"When I have to do this work, I call myself names," he said.
Some of the eliminated positions are currently unfilled.

Rebecca Harper, president of the San Bernardino Teachers Association, said she didn't have a concrete proposal to save money another way, but said layoffs would hurt students.

"SBTA stands firmly against any layoffs," she said. "We would not want to see any of them happen."


By San Bernardino County Sun

Monday, March 12, 2012

California Prisons Face Maximum Security Shortage

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/27/31402/california-prisons-face-shortage-masimum-security-/
Feb. 27, 2012 | By Julie Small | KPCC



Last year, California began complying with a federal court order to reduce its prison population by shifting thousands of low-level felons to county custody. It’s called “realignment” and although it helped bring down the number of inmates in prison, it won’t solve another problem: Where to put the thousands of serious and violent inmates.
The number of inmates in state prisons has already dropped by 16,000 since realignment took effect in October. Corrections officials project that the diversion of low-level felons to counties will reduce the state prison population by 40,000 inmates within a few years. But California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can’t shift serious felons to the counties.

In a report out last week the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected that as realignment progresses, state prisons will have a surplus of 15,000 low security beds and a shortage of 13,000 high-security beds.
The non-partisan report suggest several ways to deal with the mismatch.
Analyst Drew Soderborg says, "One thing that we’re recommending is that they try to maximize their use of their existing space to house high security inmates."
Soderborg thinks CDCR should convert most of the reception centers used to temporarily house new inmates into the higher security housing the prison system needs.
Corrections is also in the process of converting Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla into a men’s prison. The LAO recommends that CDCR use the prison to house as many serious offenders as possible.
Soderborg also says, "We’re recommending that they identify if there’s any other facilities out there that they can use to house high security inmates."
Converting facilities from minimum to maximum security will require an investment in construction, equipment and additional staff.
Soderborg says the state could save money by shutting down some of its more expensive prisons: One example the LAO's report cites is the California Institution for Men in Chino. Its security level matches that of the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, but Deuel spends $10,000 less per inmate per year to house felons than Chino does.
Soderborg says CDCR could also consider shutting down remote prisons that are difficult and expensive to staff and transferring inmates to maximum-security prisons in other states. He says California could also keep some of its high security facilities "slightly overcrowded."

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Counties dilemma: how to use funds for inmates


Count dilemma: how to use funds for inmates

Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, December 5, 2011

In a nondescript classroom one block from the San Francisco Hall of
Justice, 10 men gathered on a recent night for a parenting class.

They went around the room, sharing the high and low points of their weeks.
One man said he was relieved that November - the anniversary of both his
brother's and father's deaths - was over. Another was excited and nervous
about an upcoming job interview. The group - many of them ex-convicts, all
of them there because of past involvement with the criminal justice system
- responded with encouragement and support.

The parenting class, run by the nonprofit Community Works and sponsored by
the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, is one of a host of programs
offered both in San Francisco's jails and in the community to help
offenders get their lives back in order. Supporters say that for someone
with a criminal history, a program can mean the difference between
rehabilitation and returning to jail.

And that's why many nonprofit community organizations around California
have been lobbying hard to be included in the pot of money counties are
receiving under the state's criminal justice realignment plan, which
includes keeping more felons at county lockups instead of shipping them to
state prisons.

But how that funding is spent varies by county. Some jurisdictions are
spending the bulk of the money on law enforcement, including the hiring of
police and probation officers, while others are choosing to invest in
nonprofits that offer substance abuse counseling, housing, job training and
other services to criminal offenders.

Experts say counties that choose to invest in services are more likely to
reduce recidivism - and thus the number of people in the state's crowded
jails and prisons.

Studies back that up. A recent report by the Pew Center on the States noted
that the "largest reductions in recidivism are realized when evidence-based
programs and practices are implemented in prisons and govern the
supervision of (offenders) in the community post-release."

One of the participants in the parenting class at the Hall of Justice, a
38-year-old former drug addict, said he is proof that these programs work.

A year ago, he was living in San Francisco County Jail after 10 years of
bouncing between sobriety, drug binges and run-ins with the law. Now, he is
working full time, getting straight
A's<http://www.sfgate.com/sports/athletics/>at City
College <http://www.sfgate.com/education-guide/> and preparing to move back
in with his girlfriend and 1-year-old son.

Last week, he graduated from the parenting class.

"I'm doing really well ... and I'm proud of myself for sticking with it,"
said Scott, who did not want his last name used because he is worried about
future employment opportunities. "A lot of people don't know about drug
addiction, the things we've been through. They think it doesn't work
because statistically, it doesn't always.

"If no one else believes in you, and you don't believe in you, one person,
saying, 'I do' - that's really all it takes."
Investing in solutions

Many Bay Area counties have embraced the idea of investing in services,
with San Francisco, Alameda and Santa Clara each allocating one-quarter to
one-third of their first year realignment budget to nonprofit providers.

"Our belief is that what's really going to help in terms of resolving
recidivism and having a higher success rate is getting folks jobs and
much-needed services," said Santa Clara Probation Chief Sheila Mitchell,
who put 25 percent of the county's $15.4 million into services. "Our
funding plan mirrors our philosophy."

Some of the state's largest counties, however, have put just a fraction of
their realignment budget into services.

One of those is San Bernardino County, which is second only to Los Angeles
County in the number of inmates it sends to state prison every year. County
leaders there chose to earmark about $300,000 of their $27.5 million budget
to faith- and community-based organizations this year, a move that angered
many advocates.

County probation Chief Michelle Scray said she believes community
organizations can make the difference between incarceration and a
productive, crime-free life for someone with a criminal history.

However, Scray noted that she must ensure the county probation department
can handle an additional 2,500 former prison inmates over the next four
years. That's in addition to the 19,000 probationers the agency already
supervises.

So when San Bernardino County came up with a plan for spending its money,
Scray and other county leaders decided to spend the lion's share on hiring
probation officers, sheriff's deputies and other law enforcement officials.

Scray said she is training probation officers to do things like teach
anger-management classes at one of the three reporting centers the county
plans to open. But she said the state needs to give additional money for
nongovernment services, which she believes are important.
Ill-equipped for influx

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting different results," she said. "California has a 67 percent
recidivism rate because we only do things from the law enforcement side and
there is no rehabilitation."

Those who run nonprofits and churches say that's exactly why counties
should be investing in their services instead of waiting for money that
will likely never materialize from the deficit-plagued state.

The Rev. Samuel Casey runs COPE, a network of African American
congregations in the Inland Empire. He said San Bernardino County is
ill-equipped to handle the thousands of men and women it will be charged
with supervising under realignment. County leaders, he said, need to
analyze where these offenders will be going, what they need and what
resources are available to them - and then, they should invest in those
services.

"Part of it is just cultural competency, being able to engage this
population. These are some of our brothers, sisters, mothers, grandfathers
and uncles coming home," he said. "Probation is not going to have the
engagement with these individuals the way everyone thinks. They will barely
see them. They barely see the ones that are on probation now."

Community leaders in Sacramento, Los Angeles and elsewhere are also angry
and frustrated by the tiny amount those jurisdictions have decided to
invest this year in community services.

Daniel Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice in San Francisco, said the discrepancies between counties mirror
what was already happening in each jurisdiction prior to realignment. The
center conducts criminal justice research and provides direct services,
including a substance abuse program for adults who are released from
prison.
'Counties not prepared'

"Most counties are not prepared to meet the challenges of realignment, and
for many of them it's their own fault. They have engaged in bad practices
and policies for 30 years," he said. "The counties that will have the
hardest time are some of the Southern California and Central Valley
counties that have relied heavily on the state prison system."

Macallair said probation departments need to change the way they approach
their job and rely more on the community.

"What people don't realize is that even though we're the state of
California and we have one set of criminal laws, you have 58 counties
responsible for interpreting and applying those laws and essentially 58
different criminal justice systems," he said. "You're going to have well
functioning counties able to meet this challenge and a lot that are going
to lag behind. There's nothing uniform about this."

E-mail Marisa Lagos at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/05/MNDF1M6CVP.DTL

This article appeared on page *A - 1* of the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/05/MNDF1M6CVP.DTL&ao=2

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

California Needs to Fund Public Education and Social Service

*California Progress Report*

Posted on 14 November 2011
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/printmail/9557

*By Amy Vanderwarker*, Critical Resistance *and* *Matt Haney*, University
of California Students Association

Last Wednesday night, more than one thousand students and campus workers at
University of California Berkeley held a day of action protesting budget
cuts and fee increases to build momentum toward a state-wide demonstration
at the UC Regents meeting on November 17th. Like other Occupy movements
around the country, the crowd was cleared with police violence and mass
arrests. The irony was not lost on one professor, who noted that the sharp
rise in student debt has occurred during a period where prison funding has
consistently been prioritized over funding for higher education.

Indeed, California is now a leader on two counts that don’t make any
resident proud: we have the largest prison population in the country, and
our public universities have hiked tuition the most of any state in the
country, 21% in the past year alone.[1] We now spend nearly equivalent
amounts of money on locking people in cages as we do providing
opportunities for higher education – 10.5 % of total state spending versus
12.7 %.[2]

There is a disturbing, inverse relationship to public education and the
number of people locked up in cages: our prison population and budget has
skyrocketed, while the amount of spending on public education has
plummeted. Spending on prisons has grown 1500% since 1980, while higher
education spending has dropped. Since 1980, our state built 1 university
and 20 prisons. K-12 faced a 10.5% cut in 2009-2010, and per pupil spending
has steadily decreased since 1980.[3]

Despite these deep cuts to public education, on top of similar cuts to
Health and Human Services and our social safety net, the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Governor Brown and County
Boards of Supervisors are pushing forward the largest prison building
project in the history of the world. In 2007, as the economic crisis was
starting to unfold in the boardrooms and trading floors of the 1%, and
predatory lending schemes were about to hit millions of Californians, the
state authorized AB 900, which called for $12.4 billion to build 53,000
more prison and jail cells, which will cost taxpayers roughly $1.5 billion
per year to operate. Our state prisons currently hold around 156,000
people,[4] and conditions are so atrocious that in May the US Supreme Court
ordered the population to be reduced.

Just over two weeks ago, as schools and universities across the state brace
for the possibility of devastating trigger cuts, CDCR asked for counties to
submit proposals to disperse $603 million in funds to build new jail
cells. The funding is part of Phase II of AB 900 and directly linked to
“realignment,” where the state is transferring the responsibility for
low-level prisoners to counties But instead of giving counties incentives
to provide alternatives to imprisonment or re-entry services, such as
educational opportunities that could strengthen entire communities in
crisis, the state is making it easier for counties to access AB 900 money
and only providing counties financial incentives to build more cells.

Where is our state getting money to build cages? Slashing the social safety
net and the budget for public education and tuition hikes. Budget cuts
figuratively, and literally, make students pay. Tuition at UC schools has
increased 200% since 2008.[5] UC President Yudoff has proposed increasing
tuition as much as 81%, in the face of a potential $2.5 billion dollar cut
to education this winter.[6] California Community Colleges faced a tuition
increase of 37% in 2011.

Let’s not forget the dollars that are often left out of the estimated costs
of public education: student debt. About 56% of students who earned
bachelor's degrees at public colleges in 2009-10 graduated with debt, with
an average burden of $22,000. In 2011, this number grew 5 percent, to over
$25,000.[7]

We spend a whooping $46,000 a year on keeping people confined, away from
loved ones and in atrocious conditions, while we spend a mere $8,908 a year
per youth in our elementary, middle and high schools. California leads the
nation in prison spending, but we rank 46th in terms of K-12 per pupil
spending. What would it look like if those numbers were reversed?

On November 9th and 16th, despite police repression, thousands of students
in California are drawing attention to the slashing of public education
funds through the ReFund Public Education Week of Action. Mobilizations are
happening on 16 campuses across the State including in Fresno, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Riverside which are also some of
the counties seeking AB 900 funding to expand their jails.

As part of the Occupy movement, in mobilizations and school walk-outs
across the state, people are saying no to public education austerity
measures, and identifying solutions for generating progressive revenue
streams in a time of economic recession: tax the rich and corporations, and
use public money to bail out residents, not banks and Wall Street firms.
The Occupy movement has mobilized tens of thousands of people to protest
the consolidation of wealth among a small group of people, the obscene
profits that corporations are making while everyday residents watch their
social services cut on a daily basis, and the use of public funds to prop
up these corrupt institutions.

Our list of demands needs to include cutting prison spending first, not
last, and making those cuts by sending people home with strong re-entry
services, not making conditions inside even worse. California needs a
prison and jail construction moratorium now, or we will never have free
higher education. Just as the 99 percent says that it is time for banks and
corporations to pay, it is time for California to get our priorities
straight: fund public education and social services, not prisons.

For more information, check: Berkeleycuts.org http://berkeleycuts.org/
utotherescue.blogspot.com, reclamationsjournal.org,
www.makebankspaycalifornia.org, www.curbprisonspending.org