"POP!" - California's head emerges from a dark, stinky place...

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1917387.html

Could California become the first state in the nation to do away with welfare?

That doomsday scenario is on the table as lawmakers wrestle with a staggering $24.3 billion budget deficit.

County welfare directors are "in shock" at the very idea of getting rid of CalWORKs, which has been widely viewed as one of the most successful social programs in the state's history, said Bruce Wagstaff, director of the Department of Human Assistance in Sacramento.

"It's difficult to come up with the right adjective to react to this," Wagstaff said. "It would be devastating to the people we serve."

H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance, said California is in an unprecedented fiscal situation that has made all programs, from education to human services, vulnerable to deep and painful reductions.

"I don't wish for a moment to minimize the profound impact" that eliminating CalWORKs would have, Palmer said. "But the easy decisions are way past being in the rearview mirror for us. We face the specter of California not having cash on hand to pay its bills in July."

Wagstaff and other administrators are betting that the state will rescue the "welfare to work" program. But they are bracing for cuts that would slash benefits to the lowest levels since the late 1990s, when CalWORKs began as part of the federal government's bold reform of the welfare system.

"It would be a huge regression," said Nancy O'Hara, assistant director of the Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services. "My mind reels just thinking about all of this."

California would save $157 million in the general fund by cutting CalWORKs altogether, according to the County Welfare Directors Association. But the group warns that the state would lose some $620 million in federal funds for the program. Palmer put the projected federal loss much higher, at $3.7 billion.

The association argues that eliminating CalWORKs would force thousands of families into homelessness, hurt the state economically and put added pressure on already strapped county assistance programs.

"No other state has eliminated all aid to dependent children, and no other First World country that we are aware of has no safety net for poor families," said Frank Mecca, the group's executive director. "There really is no fallback, especially given the financial condition that most counties are in."

O'Hara predicted higher rates of child abuse and abandonment if CalWORKs were to disappear.

"I can see it happening, like it did during the Great Depression when people could no longer provide for their children," O'Hara said. "I have not allowed myself to think about it in detail. I'm holding out hope that this won't happen."

CalWORKs, which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children in California, serves some 525,000 families each month, Mecca said. Welfare caseloads have dropped by half since its inception, he said, although recently they have begun to creep up again because of the wobbly economy.

"CalWORKs represents a real cultural change in the way welfare programs operate, and it's worked. It has proven to be a success," Wagstaff said. "People have gotten jobs. We have seen good outcomes for kids. Poverty rates have gone down. It's almost unthinkable to imagine taking this step backwards."

In Sacramento County, 33,500 families receive CalWORKs benefits, including more than 62,000 children, Wagstaff said. A family of three gets a monthly check of $689, plus food stamps. But CalWORKs does more than simply issue checks, he pointed out. It helps people, many of whom have depended on public assistance for years, learn new skills and get jobs, with subsidies for child care.

"Even as the unemployment rate was going up, we were still putting thousands of people to work," said Wagstaff. "I would argue that when the economy is down, the need for these kinds of services is higher than ever."

Roxanne Morales, 44, lived off welfare "for many years" and credits CalWORKs with turning her life around.

When she learned more than a decade ago that the rules for welfare were changing and she would have to get a job or go to school to retain her benefits, Morales panicked.

"I had my first child at 16," she said. "I had never had a job before. I had no clue. But they pushed me, and I am ever so glad they did."

Today Morales has risen from customer service representative to field supervisor at Maximus Inc., which helps state and local governments manage programs such as Medi-Cal. She is financially independent and happy, she said.

"I would not be in this position today if not for CalWORKs," said Morales. "There is no way they can eliminate this program."

Wagstaff, who helped craft CalWORKs, said he is confident it will survive. "We have no instructions from anyone about shutting it down," he said. "But something big likely is going to happen."

Mecca agreed.

"It's been gratifying to hear from people on both sides of the aisle that eliminating CalWORKs would be unacceptable," said Mecca. "But the magnitude of the state's fiscal problems and the politics in Sacramento are such that we have to take every proposal seriously."

An earlier state budget proposal called for a 6 percent cut in CalWORKs grants, on top of a 4 percent cut scheduled to take effect July 1. It would have eliminated aid to children whose parents are being cut off because they've reached their 60-month time limits for welfare assistance, among other things.

Those cuts might seem palatable next to a proposal to eliminate CalWORKs entirely, Mecca said.

"There is a prevailing view that folks are being softened up for very serious, but less egregious, cuts," he said. "But if that's the strategy, it's reckless and irresponsible."

Palmer said the proposal is no bluff.

"This is not a test," he said.

While CalWorks <> California Welfare (a different program entirely), I do like the idea of whacking any welfare programs.  But let's go after the golden goose as well, people!  If you do this, get your tax and budget base back on track and then lift your silly gun laws so you're more like AZ, I might consider moving there.

This right here irks me quite a bit:

California would save $157 million in the general fund by cutting CalWORKs altogether, according to the County Welfare Directors Association. But the group warns that the state would lose some $620 million in federal funds for the program. Palmer put the projected federal loss much higher, at $3.7 billion.

If the budget for CalWorks is only $157M, why does FedGov give CA between $600M and $3.7B for the program?

How about some national level budget slashing of welfare to go along with this?

[Firethorn]

I'd cut general welfare before I'd cut CALWORKS, from the description.

Just because it's time to stop handing out fish doesn't mean that we stop teaching people HOW to fish.

And the Fed.gov subsidy does sound outragously huge.

[longeyes]

The worst of the welfare costs are going to the overpaid people who serve the welfare "customer."  They need to trim fat bureaucratic salaries and benefits, not put indigent people on the street.

[coppertales]

You mean octo mom would have to get a job?  The horror of it.

If KA would just stop paying welfare to the illegal aliens, that would help.

What is the US government doing in the welfare business?  No wonder our taxes are so high.  And even going higher when the Bush tax cuts expire next year.....chris3

[jamz]

I don't get how a $157M saving is going to help a 24B deficit.  Isn't that like finding change under the cushions when you have a multi thousand dollar mortgage due?

[charby]

I don't get how a $157M saving is going to help a 24B deficit.  Isn't that like finding change under the cushions when you have a multi thousand dollar mortgage due?

Hey look a shiny object over there.

[Ben]

It looks like the woman in this story got a job within the Calworks system, so it seems just a step up from welfare, but I agree that welfare should be cut before that program if you're going to prioritize.

What really gets me is that they're talking about killing this ~$157 million program as making a big difference. I saw another article where the governator stated that cutting benefits to illegal aliens would only save $4-5 billion, and be "a small percentage of the deficit" so he wasn't going to do it. Last I checked that would be about 25% of the deficit -- not so small to me.

[longeyes]

And he is planting a false number in the middle of the turdpile.  Other studies suggest the real annual cost of illegal aliens is two to three times that number.

So long as California is run by a Marxican legislature as a latinized plantation society there can be no improvement in California's condition.  There's been talk of a new constitutional convention being called.  The aim of this would be to make it easier to pass new tax increases, remove term limits, and, ultimately, to re-do or outright repeal Prop. XIII.

Any productive resident of CA who is not contemplating moving is foolish.

[Standing Wolf]

So long as California is run by a Marxican legislature as a latinized plantation society there can be no improvement in California's condition.  There's been talk of a new constitutional convention being called.  The aim of this would be to make it easier to pass new tax increases, remove term limits, and, ultimately, to re-do or outright repeal Prop. XIII.

You're not supposed to tell!

[Perd Hapley]

Ending welfare is a "doomsday scenario"?  No bias on display there at all.

[roo_ster]

"I can see it happening, like it did during the Great Depression when people could no longer provide for their children," O'Hara said. "I have not allowed myself to think about it in detail. I'm holding out hope that this won't happen."

CalWORKs, which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children in California, serves some 525,000 families each month, Mecca said. Welfare caseloads have dropped by half since its inception, he said, although recently they have begun to creep up again because of the wobbly economy.

Ah, I see.  The "ostrich gambit."

525K is larger than the population of Wyoming in 2000.  Since these are families, it means at least 1.050M, a number larger than the individual pops of 7 states in the USA in the year 2000.

[Jamisjockey]

"Marxican?"
 :rolleyes:

To explain the closure further, the content was quickly being lost in the noise on this one.