Public health is currently on the public mind as the swine flu scare runs its course. But what if there were no funds to cover reduction of the spread of the disease? Young children and the elderly are both more like as groups to succumb to contagious diseases, and a while back the California voters chose to tax tobacco to fund children's health.
Now, the Legislature wants Prop 1D to allow them to abrogate their responsibility toward the future voters of California and take that funding away to cover other bad choices they have made. Had this happened before SCHIP passed at the federal level, the already-strapped hospitals of California would increasingly be forced to close. SCHIP having passed will only slow this process somewhat. Blaming the nursing staff doesn't address the problem, as nursing staffs have already taken huge wage hits. (Disclosure: many of my relatives are RNs) The higher-paid RNs have generally been replaced with lower-wage LPNs, VNs, or assistants, yet the costs of hospital care continue to skyrocket. Doctors themselves find their fees undercut by insurance industry pressure for loser costs, yet their medical school loans demand repayment no matter what. Only the insurance companies report profits under such a scam. Watch Sicko if you doubt.
A society which won't adequately support public health will suffer even greater afflictions than the swine flu. That child who dies from the next outbreak of something virulent could very well be yours. It's clear that the Legislature recognizes the need for public health funding, for they are expected to continue covering public health costs out of the general fund even if Prop 1D passes. So what really gets accomplished with Prop 1D? Only increasing the risk to the general public. No tax money savings will be realized. A bad bill is still a bad bill.
The risk to the public health is also increased by Prop 1E, which continues the defunding of mental health programs for those the general public would much rather not deal with directly. In a process begun by Ronald Reagan pushing for federal funding cuts, the mentally ill are frequently seen roaming about untreated on our streets. At least those currently going without care and drifting tend not to be dangerous to themselves or the public, but further cuts will force the release of some who are. When these people commit some crime, as too many quickly will, then the costs of trying and incarcerating them will increase the law-and-order tax burden you will have to pay. Are you ready to reduce cops on the streets, courts for trials, and the jails for the convicted? I didn't think so, so pay up!
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
Words to live by:
"Damn Party affiliation to Hell! Turn off the TV! Vote the issues and not the party!"
You are exactly right. Until voters realize that their principles are only mimicked by cheap politicians currying votes, the politicians will continue to victimize us with fakery.
Politicians come and go, but the evil they do lives on long after them.
In CA Arnold has used a trick developed long ago in DC: separate all spending into 'contracts' and 'entitlements'. 'Contracts' are the no-bid handouts to your friends that are backed by 'Full Faith and Credit' and cannot subsequently be cancelled or re-negotiated. "Entitlements" are programs for the general public or needy groups in the public who have weak political influence, like children, aged, disabled, crazy, etc.
Then, later, when the budget squeezes come, you say "we can't cut or negotiate those contracts, they're backed by Full Fail And Credit. But those 'entitlements' are charity to the leeches, let's cut them!" So, school budgets are cut, tennis courts closed, city parks deteriorate.
See, it's easy to be a swindller: study politicians.
The only way to control them is to reject their dilatory politicking (over junk issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and vote the issues.
2 - roger nowosielski
It's almost incredible how Arnold has squandered his star power. He could have easily broken the California legislature's stronghold on the state within his first two years in office. But it takes a principled person to do it. Instead, he took the easy way out, trying to please everyone.
3 - Bliffle
Arnold was partly victimized by his own naive preconceptions, partly by the absurd requirement for 2/3 legislative approval on budgets, and partly by Grover Nyquist twisting arms on republican legislators to make them SIGN a document saying they will never vote for a tax increase.
4 - roger nowosielski
Well, wasn't he stuck with the "2/3" part?
5 - Bliffle
Yes, Arnold was stuck with it.
I think the CA finances have become so screwed up that the state has to be divided up into several new states (which would also improve our representation in the senate - if the damn thing has to be retained we should at least get better representation equity).