Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services - Page 8

Cadaverous Pallor · 06-08-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lashbear

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 · 06-08-2009, 08:36 AM

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 · 06-08-2009, 08:59 AM

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 · 06-08-2009, 09:22 AM

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 · 06-08-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

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 · 06-08-2009, 05:50 PM

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 · 06-08-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

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 · 06-08-2009, 05:57 PM

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 · 06-08-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

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 · 06-08-2009, 06:56 PM

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).

06-08-2009, 08:36 AM	#72
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.)
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2009, 08:59 AM	#73
Chernabog Biophage Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Moon Posts: 2,679	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. __________________ And they say back then our universe Was a coal black egg Until the god inside Burst out and from its shattered shell He made what became the world we know ~ Bjork (Cosmogony)
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2009, 09:22 AM	#74
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2009, 05:50 PM	#76
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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).
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2009, 05:57 PM	#78
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

06-08-2009, 06:56 PM	#80
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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).
	Submit to Quotes