When the helpless are used as a bargaining chip

There is not a lot of love in my heart for Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I do not believe that he actually thinks that picking on the poor, elderly, disabled and children is really something to be "very proud" about. This is all part of the Kabuki Dance Arnold does every year with the Democratic leadership. He proposes cuts to social programs that he knows the Democrats will not stand for. Then he uses them as bargaining chips during the "Big 5" meetings.

This is troubling George Skelton today and rightfully so.

These are just moves to pile bargaining chips on the negotiating table. That's got to be it.

Otherwise — at least in regards to the elderly, disabled and kids living on the edge — he'd be either a dunce or a bully, picking on the politically weak. We know he's not the former. Don't even want to think about the latter.

Arnold is a bully. We have known that for a long time, back when he was running around calling Democratic legislators "girly men" and talking about kicking nurses butts. He is being a bully over the budget, picking on the weakest among us in order to appease the conservatives. They love his draconian cuts. They just wish they went even further. Rather than acting outwardly like a bully, he is smiling and talking about how "proud" he is of his budget. Lipstick on a pig.

Let's run down some of Arnold's "proud" priorities.

• Steals $1.3 billion in transportation funds to pay for other state programs. This is likely illegal.
• Ends $39 million property tax subsidy that encourages farmers not to sell their fields to developers to build homes.
• Sells off EdFund, leaving college students at the mercy of ruthless private loan companies. Sacrifices long term gains for short term payoff.
• Privatizes State Lottery with a 40 year lease. Schools likely the biggest losers in this deal.
• Eliminates the scheduled $25/month inflation adjustment for 1.3 million elderly, blind and disabled Californians living off the federal Supplemental Security Income and the state Supplementary Program.

  This is often the only source of income for these individuals. It would have been a raise from $863/month to $888 for individuals, couples getting $1,514 would have received $1,558.

• Kick 155,000 of welfare rolls because their parents did not meet their work requirements. Saves the state $589 million.
• Freezes wages for In-Home Supportive Service workers, who were scheduled to earn $12.10 instead of the current $11.10. These workers help nearly 400,000 low-income elderly and disabled Californians to live in at home, rather than expensive nursing facilities where the taxpayers would have to pick up the big tab.

  This saves the state a big $14 million, while making recruiting for these bed pan emptying jobs all the more difficult.

This is not a moral budget, something former Assemblywoman Hannah Beth-Jackson addresses rather eloquently today.

When I first arrived in Sacramento to begin my legislative career, I was told straight out that the most important votes I would cast each year would be on the budget. I was reminded that the budget is the state's moral document; it reflects the priorities of the state to the neediest among us, to the future and to our vision of who we are as a people. It should be fair and responsible. It is a document that reflects our compassion, our sense of purpose and our values.

So here we are in 2007, with a budget that leaks red ink because of structural deficits (that means because we're required to spend certain amounts for various programs, etc. that cost more than we bring in). We've had these structural problems for years---as we load more and more requirements onto government but refuse to increase income to pay for them.

Our Governor says we should sell off some of these programs to bring in one-time dollars (and then let the private sector run amock without accountability or commitment to serving the public, just their profits). He also says we should pay back Wall Street instead of making sure that the kids on Main Street have food and shelter to help them grow and live with basic human dignity. He says we can't ask the wealthy for more, or close tax loopholes for bloated multi-national corporations that take our services but won't pay for them. Instead, we'll just ignore the blind, the elderly, the disabled and children of the poor and cut their already puny "aid". After all, why should those with so much be asked to share even a small amount with those who have so little? Why should corporations that make millions off of Californians and the freeways and infrastructure we've created for their use have to compensate the state for the benefits that come to them as a result?

It is time for the Democratic legislative leaders to hold fast to their core principles and say no to this bully of a governor. It is unacceptable to use the most vulnerable as a bargaining chip. Arnold should be ashamed of himself.