Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services

[second class citizen]

It's interesting to postulate just where Arnold would be today if he had contracted AIDS back during his bodybuiliding days by sharing a needle with other bodybuilders using illegal steroids (and they often did and still do). Makes you wonder where his career could have gone or even if he would have survived long enough to have one.

Come join us Friday, June 5 to protest the inhumane cuts of AIDS and HIV Services: http://stopthehivcuts.wordpress.com/

35,000 lives are at stake.

Who knows? You may not need these services yourself today, but you certainly could tomorrow.

[lashbear]

Despicable !!

[flippyshark]

What the hell! California, y'all need to re-boot your state! (Of course, I'm saying this from reactionary Florida)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

God, this is bull****. This ****ing state. I know we're in a budget crisis, but this is not the way to solve it.

[wolfy999]

Shaking my head....this is ridiculous! Arnold seems to want to cut the things we need the most.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm not saying this is a good idea.

But I want to ask, what should be cut?

[scaeagles]

I have been debating posting this because I'm going to get slammed unmercifully, I'm sure.....but why is this the responsibility of government?

[Snowflake]

Oh dear God, this is wrong.

[innerSpaceman]

I think the gov is going thru a petulant stage after the abject failure of the faux-budge-easing ballot measures a few weeks ago, and will be suggesting the most appalling and mean-spirited cuts for a little while till he regains adulthood.

[Alex]

I haven't looked at the specifics of the service provided so don't know how I feel specifically yet.

But since the budget shortfall is about 40% (I think that was the number I found when I last looked) of the entire discretionary budget and since every item in the budget has some group who thinks that item is among the 5 most important things the government does and since it is essentially impossible to raise taxes in this state, as CP asks, what should be cut?

That said, I have no doubt that picking some of the highest profile most-likely-to-outrage things to cut is part of the game. That is always part of the game. If a city needs to cut $100 because they can't raise taxes then it will come out of the police or fire department budget, not the secretarial Christmas party budget. You cut the things that piss off the most people because that is how you get them to give permission to increase revenues.

[JWBear]

I have been debating posting this because I'm going to get slammed unmercifully, I'm sure.....but why is this the responsibility of government?

Why is it the responsibility of government to protect you from crime?

Why is it the responsibility of government to rescue you from your burning house and but the fire out?

Why is it the responsibility of government to make sure someone doesn't build a toxic waste dump in your backyard?

Why is it the responsibility of government to dig you out of the rubble of your home after an earthquake or rescue from your roof in a flood?

Why should the government ever protect the lives and health of its citizens? Who cares if people die; we don't know them, right?

We have made these things the responsibility of the government because the majority of Americans realize that these things are necessary in a civilized society; and that government is in the best position to provide these services equitably.

In regards to HIV/AIDS services, many of the programs being cut can not be found in the public sector. The AIDS Assistance Drug Program is one of the ones being cut. This program pays for the AIDS drugs that are the only things keeping many healthy and live. These drugs can cost thousands of dollars a month (thanks to the greedy drug companies); far out of the reach of most people. Without ADAP, many with AIDS will be forced to stop taking these life saving medications. And without medications to keep the virus at bay, they will die.

But that's not your problem, is it? Why should you care? Let them fend for themselves. And if they don't survive? Oh well. At least your taxes didn't go up! That would have been a tragedy!

[Strangler Lewis]

Somehow I don't think that cutting AIDS services is going to spark a revolt that leads to the repeal of Proposition 13.

[Strangler Lewis]

Thanks a bunch, JW Bear. Now Scaeagles gets to go around saying he's clairvoyant.

[wendybeth]

Good post, JW. I might add: Why is it the responsibility of the government to go to war? If we are attacked, shouldn't it just be every man and woman for themselves? Why should the government get involved?

Like it or not, any assault on a country's populace, whether that be in the form of war, epidemic, famine, etc- anything that can harm the society as a whole- is the government's business. That's why we have a government, if you follow the Social Contract model, anyway. You choose to live within a society for the benefits it affords you, and there is, was and always has been a cost to the individual. I don't know when in history any government that you (Scaeagles) would approve of wholeheartedly ever existed.

[JWBear]

Ahh... But WB, the military is just about the only thing conservatives think the government should be involved in. In other words the government should only be in the business of killing people, not saving lives.

[scaeagles]

But that's not your problem, is it? Why should you care? Let them fend for themselves. And if they don't survive? Oh well. At least your taxes didn't go up! That would have been a tragedy!

Well, I did indeed get slammed.

I don't think feeding the poor is the responsibility of government, but think it's a great alternative to starvation.

I don't think funding this program is the responsibility of government, but think it's a great alternative to death from AIDS.

There are many, many things - as you pointed out - that the government does that we as a society have deemed are good things. At the state level I think that's great.

I honestly don't know....but are similar programs in CA offered for diabetics and cancer patients and other life threatening diseases?

[JWBear]

...but are similar programs in CA offered for diabetics and cancer patients and other life threatening diseases?

Yes.

[scaeagles]

Good post, JW. I might add: Why is it the responsibility of the government to go to war? If we are attacked, shouldn't it just be every man and woman for themselves? Why should the government get involved?
[snip]
I don't know when in history any government that you (Scaeagles) would approve of wholeheartedly ever existed.

Well, simplistically, the Constitution does call for the federal government to provide for the common defense.

Is there a government at any time in history that YOU (WB) would approve of wholeheartedly? As Winston Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others. Don't get all high and mighty and suggest you don't disagree with things the government has done and will do. I didn't even say I disagreed with what the program does, though will admit my post asking why it was the responsibility of government was provocative, and intentionally so. As CP posted, EVERY program that will get cut will have champions and those who believe it is vital and stupid to cut it. So where do cuts come from?

[scaeagles]

Yes.

In that case, don't discriminate. Cut them all across the board. It would be better to have cuts in each program and keep them each there, I suppose, than to eliminate one all together.

[JWBear]

I don't think feeding the poor is the responsibility of government...

If not the government, then who? Especially in this economy.

Private food banks have seen a huge increase in applicants, while donations have shrunk. As a consequence, they are turning people away in droves. And even if those in need can find a food bank that can help, it often comes with restrictions. Many religious bases organizations will turn you away if you are of a different faith or if they disapprove of your life circumstances (try getting services from a baptist church if you are a single mother, or gay, or a Muslim).

The government can not discriminate against you for these things.

So Leo, if you suddenly find yourself without money to feed your children, and all the private food banks in your area are unable or unwilling to help you, you would allow your children to die of starvation because it's not the government's place to feed them, right?

[JWBear]

In that case, don't discriminate. Cut them all across the board. It would be better to have cuts in each program and keep them each there, I suppose, than to eliminate one all together.

Yep! Let these people die! Why should we give a damn, it's only our problem, right?

[scaeagles]

If not the government, then who? Especially in this economy.


I love being mischaracterized. Thanks for chopping of the part of the quote that says "but think it's a great alternative to starvation.".

[Strangler Lewis]

Left unchecked, health care advances and higher life expectancies will spell the end of our way of life.

[second class citizen]

Thanks a bunch, JW Bear. Now Scaeagles gets to go around saying he's clairvoyant.
What do you mean?

[scaeagles]

I said I'd get slammed for posting what I did.

[second class citizen]

I don't know when in history any government that you (Scaeagles) would approve of wholeheartedly ever existed.

Yes it does! Somalia!

[Alex]

That's true. Maybe a ballot initiative for next year saying that once you reach 55 you must die or move to Nevada, whichever is least painful.

If you want to start playing Master of the Budget and figure out where you'd cut 10+ billion in spending start drilling down here (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/agencies.html). That is, I believe, the budget from earlier this year and not reflecting new proposals from the failure of the props in the recent election.

One thing that Arnie could do unilaterally to save some significant money would be to grant pardons to all non-violent drug offenders currently incarcerated in California prisons. It would be political suicide, especially once one of those people killed or raped someone, of a spectacular nature. But he'd have my support (even once one of those peole killed or raped someone).

[Alex]

I approve wholeheartedly of the nature of our government. I just don't approve wholeheartedly of everything that results from that.

But I live with that and bitch about the disappointments.

[scaeagles]

Yes it does! Somalia!

???? You know nothing of me.

[second class citizen]

In that case, don't discriminate. Cut them all across the board. It would be better to have cuts in each program and keep them each there, I suppose, than to eliminate one all together.

But that's not what Arnold has proposed. You asked a question and I suppose you can now see how passionate people are about the specific proposals (cutting live saving programs for people with AIDS who are on low income).

Let me suggest to you as someone who knows what could very possibly happen when these individuals become cut off from their life saving medications. There are numerous scenarios and I'm sure that given enough time I could think of many more.

Imagine 35,000 people who are dying from AIDS who are abruptly cut off from the drugs. Some will become prostitutes (female and male) (and for those heterosexuals who didn't get the memo, AIDS has been for some time now predominately transmitted through heterosexual means) and will sell themselves in order to make money so they can to cling to life or simply because they want to "live life to the fullest" before they die. Most likely they are going to make a point of NOT letting anyone know they are positive, because that would drive away most people. Their thinking: Why the f*ck should I care who I infect? No one cares about me, so why should I care about anybody else? Believe me when I tell you, this is INDEED how some people think. I've witnessed it firsthand. Now you have a potential of all those people deliberately or malisciously or apathetically passing on HIV to the wider unsuspecting popluation.

You will also have people who lives are SO intertwinned with those infected that they will not care about living without their dying loved ones. There will be some who will deliberately allow themselves to be infected (This is called "giving them the gift"), so they can "go down with their loved ones on a sinking ship" (think of Rose in Titantic or in real life, Mrs. Straus who refused to get on the lifeboat because her husband wouldn't go).

These are simply two scenarios I can think of and have either witnessed firsthand or read about in journals. There are thousands of others, most likely as many as there are people directly affected by this and my examples don't even begin to cover individuals who contract it by sharing tainted needles. God knows how many disastrous scenarios will ensue in that direction!

Cutting people off from life saving services is similar to cutting off firefighters from stopping or controlling a fire. The fire is most likely going to spread into other homes which were once deemed safe.

These cuts not only cease life-saving medications, they also cut AIDS education as well and most importantly to those who most likely need to be educated!

I have worked with HIV educators who get their funding from the government. I know people who have volunteered to be models for the "HIV Stops With Me" slogan, in spite of the fact that they would be discrimated against simply for having a disease. All these people are my heroes! They have made a huge difference in not only educating the general public about AIDS but also in stopping the spread of it.

[second class citizen]

???? You know nothing of me.

Yes and you know nothing of me either.

[scaeagles]

And I don't think I've ever said anything rude or presumptious about you, either.

[wendybeth]

To answer your question, Scaeagles, I happen to quite like our government. It's not perfect, but nothing is. I would also add that you take a page from the history of the French Revolution, or for that matter the Russian Revolution. Let poverty, privation, illness and alienation of what is always the largest class in any society- the poor- run unchecked, and your government isn't going to stay in power very long. That's something the USA understands probably better than any other country, as we have been the refuge for these people for centuries now. By your own admission, you were being provocative- so why the outrage at the reaction? Everyone realizes that budget cuts are going to run deep, but there are just so many other areas of waste that should be investigated before passing out a death sentence to so many people.

[Disneyphile]

Think of the money that the state could raise simply by legalizing marijuana and manufacturing or taxing it.

I also think placing a higher tax on booze, cigarettes and fast food would be a good idea too.

Problems would be solved, and the impact relatively painless.

[Alex]

Sure, taxing things would solve problems. Unfortunately that's essentially an impossible solution currently.

With any new or increased taxes requiring 2/3rds and both parties having colluded to create safe districts for everybody that essentially guarantees Republicans a permanent minority big enough to thwart any taxes they want without facing serious risk of electoral repercussion there is a near zero chance of using taxes to significantly help the current situation. So cut away.

Bitch about him all we like, but Schwarzenegger has offered serious reform to the systems that created this current problem and both the state legislature and voters directly have rebuffed him.

Plus, I don't see how it would realistically do the state any good to legalize marijuana if the feds would then arrest the people selling it.

[lashbear]

Plus, I don't see how it would realistically do the state any good to legalize marijuana if the feds would then arrest the people selling it.
Especially as it's the State that would be manufacturing and selling it. :D

[Morrigoon]

I think you could get away with increasing taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. It'll cause an outcry, but not a strong enough one to stop it. I know I'm a jerk for suggesting it, but there you go.

Junk food, on the other hand, is in many cases the cheapest food available, so raise the prices on that and you've just made food for the poor more expensive. While execs can afford to lunch in sit-down restaurants that serve soups and lovely salads, the poor often run to McDonald's, etc.

I do wonder what the method behind this madness is. Are they trying to soften us up for approving something, or are they trying to get special interests riled up to help them get funds on a federal level? The optimist in me wants to think that's what's behind it. I don't know that it is, but I hope so. It'd be nice if the nation could toss us a freaking bone, since their closures of the bases sent CA into troubles that pretty much never left us, even in the good times.

[Kevy Baby]

Especially as it's the State that would be manufacturing and selling it. :DWould that mean the state of California would be arrested? It creates a mind-boggling scenario.

[scaeagles]

To answer your question, Scaeagles, I happen to quite like our government. It's not perfect, but nothing is.

[snip]

By your own admission, you were being provocative- so why the outrage at the reaction?

I like our government too. There are things we would both change. I don't like the direction it is moving, but 5 years ago you would say the same thing. All political and what we think is best.

I was being provocative to an extent, but I think there is a bit of a difference between asking a question and expecting a defense of why people support something and the rhetoric implying I want all AIDS patients to die.

[wendybeth]

I suspect you were trying to make a point via devil's advocacy, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it was, excepting that the we're in a place where hard choices are our only choices? No matter- I agree that The Governator himself was being provocative (for reasons already posted) and I just think that his choice of HIV was a poor one, especially since the Prop 8 fiasco.

[JWBear]

I was being provocative to an extent, but I think there is a bit of a difference between asking a question and expecting a defense of why people support something and the rhetoric implying I want all AIDS patients to die.

"Wanting"... perhaps not. Supporting policy that would lead to the deaths of thousands... Yes.

[Moonliner]

There is a report today that your Gov is suggesting a 15% flat tax.

I was just wondering, what percentage are you good citizens paying now?

(15% sounds high for a state tax)

[wolfy999]

Here in OC 8.75%

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here in OC 8.75%
That's sales, Moonie's talking income.

Though I wonder, did that flat tax proposal include nixing sales tax? That would make 15% seem a more reasonable #.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

That said, I have no doubt that picking some of the highest profile most-likely-to-outrage things to cut is part of the game. That is always part of the game. If a city needs to cut $100 because they can't raise taxes then it will come out of the police or fire department budget, not the secretarial Christmas party budget. You cut the things that piss off the most people because that is how you get them to give permission to increase revenues.As someone who has 1) assisted the library manager regarding budget cuts, 2) been part of a project to ferret out what areas can be cut, and 3) actually read our budgets when they are introduced, I can safely say that this is not the case in our city. Last winter's Christmas party was nothing compared to the year before and it was noticeable - I'm sure not because they saved a ton of money, but because it shows our commitment to cutting the fat.

Police and Fire do not get cut, so the library takes hits, including a 75% book/media budget cut. No joke. We understand, since we don't want to cut Police or Fire either. We're also closing our branches for an extra day each week.

I believe that our city has no real way to raise taxes - we get the county sales tax and the state money - so perhaps that's why there are no controversial cuts.

We only had to cut our city budget by 5% (this is only regarding sales tax revenues, as no one is even doing the numbers regarding the state shortfalls yet, and we'll probably have to cut more later). This is nothing near the 40% that Alex mentioned. If our city had to cut 40%, it would be hard to keep the library open at all. Would I take to the streets in outrage? I don't think so, mostly because I'd sound like an idiot.

I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that money grows on trees.

[Moonliner]

That's sales, Moonie's talking income.

Though I wonder, did that flat tax proposal include nixing sales tax? That would make 15% seem a more reasonable #.

Nixing the sales tax would be great for tourism.....

An 8.75% Discount on the entire state :)

[scaeagles]

"Wanting"... perhaps not. Supporting policy that would lead to the deaths of thousands... Yes.

There are approx 37500 traffic deaths in the US annually. I propose a 5 mph speed limit and a governor on every vehicle to ensure it is followed. This would practically eliminate all traffic deaths. Anyone who does not agree with this must therefore be put in the box of supporting the current policy, which leads to 37500 deaths per year.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that money grows on trees.

Technically, of course, it does. It's been a long time since it was based on anything of supposed value (such a gold). It's just paper.

Printing lots of it would devalue it greatly. But it has no inherent value, nor is it based on anything of inherent value. It's paper. Ok, it's made of trees, not grows on them. ;)

[€uroMeinke]

I thought our dollars were linen

[JWBear]

There are approx 37500 traffic deaths in the US annually. I propose a 5 mph speed limit and a governor on every vehicle to ensure it is followed. This would practically eliminate all traffic deaths. Anyone who does not agree with this must therefore be put in the box of supporting the current policy, which leads to 37500 deaths per year.

This scenario does not correlate at all. Let me give you one that does:

Say we got a list of the names of those 37500. By some means we have indisputable proof that each and every one of those people will die in a traffic accident in the next year; and only the government has the resources to make the necessary modifications to their cars (only their cars need the modifications, as only they are affected) to keep that from happening. Would you still insist that saving their lives is no business of the government's? Would you really advocate that the government just let them die so your taxes don't go up?

Now suppose that some of the people on that list are friends and relatives of yours - people that you care for. Would you really tell your loved ones on that list "Oh well, it's not my problem. We need to cut the budget. Tough luck."?

[JWBear]

I thought our dollars were linen

Cotton, actually.

[Alex]

Not to mention that paper is only an occasional representation of money. Most money never sees the light of physicality.

CP, I should have been clearer in saying that cutting the fire department is the game of elected politicians. Much less those who actually have to run the agencies after the cuts are made (though I've still seen that plenty of times). And "always" was needlessly hyperbolic. Nothing is always. But a lot.

[Alex]

JW: In your example I'd probably tell those 37500 people to not drive their car but if they choose to they know the outcome that they're accepting.

Doesn't necessarily translate to the HIV funding though.

[scaeagles]

Of course it doesn't translate. All it was is an example of a way that we could absolutely save 37500 lives annually and it wouldn't even cost 1 cent. Except we'd probably have to have some fund or something to purchase the governors for all the cars.

[scaeagles]

Now suppose that some of the people on that list are friends and relatives of yours - people that you care for. Would you really tell your loved ones on that list "Oh well, it's not my problem. We need to cut the budget. Tough luck."?

Actually, what I would do (and have done in the past) is help them myself to the best of my ability. And donate to charities that do. However, since I don't always support the government being the one who takes action, I must be the one who is selfish in just not wanting my taxes raised, even though I help in other ways.

[Prudence]

The comparison I would make is a contrast to other "safety net" programs.

Take food stamps. Without food stamps, people go hungry. Will some die? Quite possibly. Somehow most will likely scrape by. Not well, but they'll live. Soup kitchens, shelters, digging through garbage -- somehow they'll manage to live to see the next day.

Without the right medications, those with HIV/AIDS *will* die. And they can't go to a soup kitchen or shelter or dig through the garbage to find some sort of replacement. Furthermore, the expense is such that the community cannot absorb it through the same sort of limited altruism that stocks food pantries.

[JWBear]

The comparison I would make is a contrast to other "safety net" programs.

Take food stamps. Without food stamps, people go hungry. Will some die? Quite possibly. Somehow most will likely scrape by. Not well, but they'll live. Soup kitchens, shelters, digging through garbage -- somehow they'll manage to live to see the next day.

Without the right medications, those with HIV/AIDS *will* die. And they can't go to a soup kitchen or shelter or dig through the garbage to find some sort of replacement. Furthermore, the expense is such that the community cannot absorb it through the same sort of limited altruism that stocks food pantries.

Exactly. There are no alternatives in the private sector. If ADAP is cut, most will die.

[innerSpaceman]

scaeagles' hypothetical was ludicrous in many other ways as well, but I daresay his purpose was not to suggest a realistic analogy ... but rather to suggest his position on AIDS funding from the California budget does not correlate directly with him being gruesomely cavalier about human death and suffering.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

There are plenty of other people that have been diagnosed with deadly diseases. If we had a state run health care system, then we'd need to cover them. We do not. How do you pick and choose which diseases we should provide coverage for? If the answer is that we need to medicate all people who have been diagnosed with deadly diseases, then we need to have mandated health care, which I support, but we do not have it at the moment.

Again, those of you that are so angry they are cutting this particular program - what do you cut? If you do not know the ins and outs of exactly what is being cut and what isn't (and I sure don't) then you can't claim that this is the wrong program to cut.

[JWBear]

There are plenty of other people that have been diagnosed with deadly diseases. If we had a state run health care system, then we'd need to cover them. We do not. How do you pick and choose which diseases we should provide coverage for? If the answer is that we need to medicate all people who have been diagnosed with deadly diseases, then we need to have mandated health care, which I support, but we do not have it at the moment.

Again, those of you that are so angry they are cutting this particular program - what do you cut? If you do not know the ins and outs of exactly what is being cut and what isn't (and I sure don't) then you can't claim that this is the wrong program to cut.

Are those diseases fully manageable only with medications that can cost thousands of dollars per month? And without those meds, you will quickly fall ill and die? If so, then they should be as fully funded as AIDS/HIV.

What do you cut? Things that people won't die without.

I am truly saddened and appalled at the number of people here who would so cavalierly let people die! Sickening!

[€uroMeinke]

I am truly saddened and appalled at the number of people here who would so cavalierly let people die! Sickening!

well, how much of your own cash have you committed to the cause? The government may be one avenue of help, but it's not the only one. I don't think you can condemn a group of people not know what they themselves have done to help others in need outside of "giving at the office" via the government.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Are those diseases fully manageable only with medications that can cost thousands of dollars per month? And without those meds, you will quickly fall ill and die? If so, then they should be as fully funded as AIDS/HIV.They should be, but they aren't. I support full health care for all US citizens. We don't have that, which means we don't have the funding set up for it.

I am truly saddened and appalled at the number of people here who would so cavalierly let people die! Sickening!Without health care for all, we're pretty much stuck picking and choosing. Thank you for accusing me of cavalierly letting people die, especially since I said nothing of the sort. An apology would be appreciated.

There are plenty of treatable diseases that aren't covered by the government right now.

Oh, and did you have that list of gov't programs you're going to cut ready?

[Strangler Lewis]

How much is a human life worth? Not every life can be saved, and it's hard not to view the financial decision as intertwined with a policy decision about who is worth saving and whether a "no" vote is a dispassionate one or smacks in some way of persecution. I suspect JW Bear would have a different view about cutting some posited government funded program to regrow spinal cords for ATV accident victims.

[€uroMeinke]

And in the end the government still can't ensure my immortality - bastards

[Kevy Baby]

I am truly saddened and appalled at the number of people here who would so cavalierly let people die! Sickening!Seriously: that is what you think is going on here?

Seriously?

Get your head out of your ass. No one here has represented that they cavalierly want anyone with HIV/AIDS to suddenly lose their source of medication that keeps them alive. You are not the only one here that knows people with HIV/AIDS or has lost friends to the same disease. This is not just a "gay" disease: it affects everyone.

But some of us see outside of our own little individual worlds to see that there are others out there that need help.

[JWBear]

I sincerely hope that those of you who have no problem with the state cutting ADAP, and condemning many thousands to their deaths, have never had to watch someone they love die for no reason other than the inability to afford medical care. I hope you have never fallen in love with someone only to watch them whither and die as you watch helplessly. I hope this because it's easier to think you support these cuts out of ignorance of the human suffering that will result, rather than out of knowing but uncaring indifference.

I would ask you to find the parents of a child dying of AIDS and tell them, to their face, that their child needs to die because "We have to cut something". Tell the single mother that she will never be able to see her child grow up because it's not the government's place to pay for her medical care. Look into the eyes of a man who's only hope for life is the medications he can only have because of ADAP. Watch the fear and despair in his eyes as he realizes he has just been condemned to die a long and unpleasant death while the Governor and his cronies smoke their cigars and pat themselves on the back for "winning" one against the "other side".

There is something terribly wrong with a society where the lives of those less fortunate can be sacrificed on the altar of Less Government.

Go ahead and continue sitting in your comfortable middle class houses, in your comfortable middle class neighborhoods, living your comfortable middle class lives where you never have to decide between paying rent or buying medications - because you can't afford both (or either). Go right ahead and keep discussing these cuts with all the dispassion of just another political chess game. As for me... I'm done here.

[Kevy Baby]

The funny thing is that no one here has said they "have no problem with with the state cutting ADAP"

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, no one here has said that, JW. What some of us have said is that the cuts are going to be painful, no matter where they come from

I for one, have said this particular cut is so deplorable, it must be a ploy for outrage or an expression of pique on behalf of a governator who lost big at the recent election.

It's so horrible I can't believe it's true, but Monday is the day we find out ... and I'm shocked to learn this may be truth and not a badly-conceived ploy to shock constituents.

That being said, I still think whatever cuts are going to be made are going to be horribly painful to some people. But this seems among the most painful possible cuts and I am against it with ever fiber of my being.


JW, please re-read this thread. I don't believe anyone has expressed the remotest inking of support for this humanitarian disaster.

[lashbear]

There are plenty of other people that have been diagnosed with deadly diseases. If we had a state run health care system, then we'd need to cover them. We do not. How do you pick and choose which diseases we should provide coverage for?
I think that the issue of which diseases to cover is for another discussion (and boy is it s doozy!!) however my reasong would be this:

We are presently covering HIV/AIDS for whatever reason (I guess because state govt voted to do so) so therefore shouldn't we continue to do so based on the fact that, if the state withdraws that funding and the Fed govt wont pick up the program and fund it themselves, then the drugs will no longer be available for most people and they will die.

I am surprised there aren't more non-life supporting programs that could be trimmed. First and foremost the State's Politicians Wages, Retirement packages, etc.

Stoat adds: We're very sorry to see the state of CA is so far into their list of "trimmable/expendable funds" that they are up to Life-Support programs already !!

[lashbear]

I find it quite telling that of the 7 updated threads listed this morning, 3 of them were discussing the State of California's failures:
The California Budget Woes and Me (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=9595)
Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=9591)
Post Prop H8 Fallout (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=8789)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

We are presently covering HIV/AIDS for whatever reason (I guess because state govt voted to do so) so therefore shouldn't we continue to do so based on the fact that, if the state withdraws that funding and the Fed govt wont pick up the program and fund it themselves, then the drugs will no longer be available for most people and they will die.

I am surprised there aren't more non-life supporting programs that could be trimmed. First and foremost the State's Politicians Wages, Retirement packages, etc.That's the thing - I really don't know what has been saved and what has been cut. If they really are cutting 40% then I wouldn't be surprised if they are getting to the bone of basic requirements for running the state.

That's why I'm at the benefit of the doubt stage. Unless I want to go and read the entire budget I feel that I'm uneducated in this decision and that it's quite possible that this program saves less lives than other programs that are not being cut. Horrible as it is, it's possible.

As I've been saying all along, if JW or anyone else wants to actually read the budget and let us know what wasteful programs are being saved to cut this needed one, I'd love to hear it, and I would totally support rescuing this life-saving program, or donate towards charities which perform the same functions.

[Alex]

To clarify, I did not say that they're cutting 40% of the budget but that I think they're trying to cut around 40% of the discretionary budget.

I'm trying to find the current numbers but in 2003, 63% of the budget was mandatory. Meaning that if the state government is functioning it is obligated to spend that much. This includes Prop 98 primary education funding, Medi-Cal, pensions, debt servicing, etc.

The remaining budget is discretionary and this is where almost all budget cuts will have to be made. According to the LA Times the current projected budget shortfall is $24 billion.

The 2003 total discretionary spending was $33.4 billion. So if that number is the same (and I'm guessing it is smaller now since we've already been through a couple budget cuts since then) and they were forced to actually balance the budget entirely through budget cuts (which won't happen since a lot will still come through accounting tricks and revenue adjustments that aren't covered by Prop 13) that would actually require a 72% cut in discretionary spending.

2003 discretionary spending was:
Higher Education (UC and CSU) - $5.3b
Corrections - $5.2b
Health & Social Services - $12.9b
All other discretionary - $10.0b

So, unless political suicide is committed by completely defunding higher education and prisons and absolutely everything else discretionary (and still being a few billion short of balanced), significant cuts are going to have to come out of the Health & Social Services piece of the pie. And I think it is probable that almost every possible cut in that segment will have someone standing behind it saying "cut this and people will die."

That is not to say that I think this particular program is a reasonable target. My gut reaction is that it is not. But like I said above I simply don't have enough knowledge about the entire system to have more than a gut reaction and I suspect that we're in for quite a season of "oh my god, this is the most vile thing Sacramento budgeters have ever tried to do, why do they hate humanity so?" Heck, this thread is already the second one (see also: closing state parks).


(As a side note, notice the "debt servicing" I mentioned as part of the mandatory budget. In 2003 we spent more on interest - $3.8 billion - than on the entire UC system - $2.8b.)

[Chernabog]

I wish the drug companies would step up in some way, but obviously that is too much to ask.

Maybe if we explained to them that their market is going to die and they'll make less money in the long run, their dollar signs would start flashing.

But that's rather doubtful too.

[Alex]

As an FYI, the California budget problems will be the topic on today's Talk of the Nation on NPR. It'll be interesting to see how this is playing to a national audience.

[Andrew]

Meaning that if the state government is functioning it is obligated to spend that much.

I think this mess is good evidence that the state government is not actually functioning. Perhaps it should be replaced with something that does.

[Alex]

True, but the "functioning" threshold here is low. Meaning essentially it means: is not defaulting on its obligations (for some of the stuff) and has a legislated budget for the rest.

Though by another definition it is functioning perfectly. The California mess is exactly what the people of California has said over and over is what they want (well not explicitly but they keep rejecting anything that would prevent this result).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I think this mess is good evidence that the state government is not actually functioning. Perhaps it should be replaced with something that does.Would be lovely, though short of a revolution, I don't see them starting from scratch.

[Alex]

There is a growing movement for calling a constitutional convention which could theoretically redo the whole thing. That's not going to help with the current situation though.

[lashbear]

in 2003, 63% of the budget was mandatory. Meaning that if the state government is functioning it is obligated to spend that much. This includes Prop 98 primary education funding, Medi-Cal, pensions, debt servicing, etc.

The remaining budget is discretionary: 2003 discretionary spending was:
Higher Education (UC and CSU) - $5.3b
Corrections - $5.2b
Health & Social Services - $12.9b
All other discretionary - $10.0b
I'm just shocked to see that Higher Education, Corrections ( take it this means correctional services like jail, and not a whole lot of tipp-ex), and Health & Social Services are not mandatory?!?! OK, so maybe universities could be in discretionary spending but Prisons & Health services and Social Services (this means welfare, yes?)

Something wrong there.

[Alex]

Well, "mandatory" means that there are requirements beyond simply statutory budgeting negotiations that requires the spending. Contracts, the state constitution, etc.

The state constitution has explicit requirements on how much must be spent on certain types of education. Existing contracts require funding pensions at certain levels. Bonds issued have interest payment requirements, etc.

Prisons and universities and such are certainly mandatory from the electorate's point of view. There is just nothing outside the legislative process that dictates exactly how much must be spent.

So it is kind of like saying in your personal budget that the mortgage and electrical bill are mandatory budget items but food is discretionary. You're contractually obligated to spend certain amounts for your mortgage and electricity or go into default. Obviously you eating is mandatory, there's just nothing that says exactly how much you are required to spend doing so (food kitchen or 5-star dining both meed the mandatory part).

The breakdown of the analogy being that you can decide to default on the mortgage in favor of food and the repercussions are relatively minor (credit blemishes, you move into a small apartment in the bad part of town) but if the state government starts defaulting on these obligations the impacts are huge in terms of collateral damage (unfunded pensions means taking money out of people's pockets) and massively expensive (you can stop borrowing money; the state government can't -- even if the budget is balanced -- and so debt defaults will make the cost of future money go up dramatically).

[Morrigoon]

I cannot believe I'm saying this, but...

Perhaps Alex's suggestion of cutting short sentences for drug offenders and getting them out of the system is a good idea at this point.

Or perhaps offer a trade that requires them to agree to appear weekly at designated treatment programs (AA meetings, etc.) for the duration of their sentences in exchange for early release.

[lashbear]

I think they should up the tax on petrol so that you guys are paying the same as us (US$3.60 per Gallon) - that would clear the shortfall in no time ! :evil:

[Chernabog]

I personally know a lot of people that are living happy, healthy, productive lives due to this program. None of those three adjectives would describe their lives if they were without meds. It is different here because we are talking about cutting medication which is literally life-saving. What kind of a government is this that effectively and knowingly kills it citizens?

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, well the budget won't be decided until July 1 ... so please everyone call your elected Sacramento representatives to tell them to oppose cuts to these programs. Even reps who are opposed to the cuts need to be urged to make opposing them a top priority. If you're a supporter (or just wanna pretend to be one), it helps to let them know that your continued voting and financial support depends on their stance and strength of stance on this issue that is,for once, quite literally life and death.