LEGISLATIVE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEES TAKE INITIAL STEPS IN REJECTING GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED CUTS TO IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AND SSI/SSP

Assembly Budget Subcommittee Rejects Standards to Limit RC Services
(See full story below IHSS story).

SENATE PRESIDENT JOHN BURTON SAYS GOVERNOR'S BUDGET CUTS TO SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, SENIORS AND THE POOR "UNWORTHY OF CALIFORNIA" -  PROMISES FIGHT (See full story below IHSS and RC stories)

SACRAMENTO  -  Both the Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees took significant initial steps Thursday afternoon (May 20) toward fully rejecting Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed cuts to In-Home Services for people with developmental and other disabilities and seniors, and also cuts to Supplemental Security Income/State Supplement Program (SSI/SSP) that provide grants also critical to people with disabilities and seniors.  [see separate CDCAN Capitol News Report #95-2004, and #96-2004 on what actions were taken impacting regional center funded community-based services in the Assembly Budget Subcommittee, and also on the huge march and rally for disability rights, also held on May 20th]

While the actions are not final and need approval by the full Senate and Assembly, it represents the first concrete steps by the Legislature to oppose the Governor's major cuts impacting people with developmental and other disabilities and seniors.

Both the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health, Human Services, Labor and Veteran Affairs, chaired by Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd District) and the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services, chaired by Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) held hearings Thursday afternoon and took the following action related to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) and SSI/SSP:

SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME/STATE SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAM (SSI/SSP)
What the Governor Proposes: The Governor's January proposed budget for 2004-2005 called for the suspension of withhold the federal cost of living adjustment ($76.3 million in state general fund savings - or a cut to SS/SSP recipients) due in January 2005; and also to suspend the state cost of living adjustment (cut to SSI/SSP recipients of $71.1 million) due this year.
What the Legislature Has Done as of 5/20/04:
* The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 voted 3-0 to reject the Governor's proposal to eliminate the federal cost of living adjustment pass-through and the suspension of the state cost of living adjustment and restore funding in the 2004-2005 budget.
Roll Call Vote 5/20/04: Senators Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd District), Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles, 22nd District), Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento, 6th District), all voting AYE.
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, 19th District) and Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz, 15th District)  were not present when the vote was taken - coming into the hearing afterwards.  They can add their votes to actions taken by the subcommittee - but it is not known as of this writing how they voted.  Their votes would not change the outcome however.
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 took the same action as the Senate's,  at their hearing May 20
Roll Call Vote 5/20/04: Assemblmembers Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) , Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th District) and John Laird (D-Santa Cruz, 27th District) voting AYE.
Assemblymembers Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut, 60th District) and Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta, 66th District) were not present and did NOT vote.
What Does The Legislature's Actions Mean as of 5/20/04: This is a first initial step - and a initial major victory - in a long process.
Who This Impacts:  About 1.2 million Californians receive SSI/SSP - about 740,000 of whom are seniors, Blind or people with developmental and other disabilities.
Next Steps In Legislative Budget Process:  The actions by both subcommittees will be approved next week by the full budget committees in both houses.  In theory, because both houses exactly agree on rejecting the Governor's proposal, this issue should not go to the joint budget conference committee.  That special committee, which could meet as early as next week, is made up of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican from both the Assembly and Senate to resolve any differences in actions taken.  However the Schwarzenegger Administration could request - as Governor Davis' Administration did last year, for certain issues, even if both houses agreed, to be brought up in the budget conference committee.

IHSS PROVIDER (WORKER) WAGES
What the Governor Proposes: To reduce the State's contribution  in IHSS worker wages and benefits from the current $10.10, (that is also funded with county and federal funds)  to the state minimum wage of $6.75, cutting over $301.6 million from the IHSS budget ($98 million of that is state general fund) for 2004-2005.  The Governor's proposal would over-ride previous legislation passed in 1999 promising IHSS workers increase in wages.
What the Legislature Has Done as of 5/20/04:
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 previously voted to reject the Governor's proposal and restore funding on this IHSS worker wages at a previous hearing held on April 28 by a vote of 3-0.
Roll Call Vote 4/28/04: Assemblymembers Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) , Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th District) and John Laird (D-Santa Cruz, 27th District) voting AYE.
Assemblymembers Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut, 60th District) and Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta, 66th District) were not present and did NOT vote.
* The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 took the same action at their hearing on yesterday, May 20.
Roll Call Vote 5/20/04: Senators Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd District), Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles, 22nd District), Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento, 6th District), all voting AYE.
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, 19th District) and Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz, 15th District)  were not present when the vote was taken - coming into the hearing afterwards.  They can add their votes to actions taken by the subcommittee - but it is not known as of this writing how they voted.  Their votes would not change the outcome however.
What Does The Legislature's Actions Mean as of 5/20/04: This is a first initial step - and initial victory - in a long process.  It is not the final step, nor does it mean the IHSS program worker wages are safe yet.  Like the NBA basketball play-offs,  where there are a series of play-off games before reaching the final game that decides who is the champion - the state budget process has a series of actions - all which lead up to final votes by all 80 members of the Assembly and 40 members of the Senate, capped by approval of the Governor.  Barring a stalemate, a budget is supposed to be passed and signed into law no later than June 30 (actually the State Constitution has an earlier requirement, which has been routinely ignored).
Who This Impacts:  Tens of thousands of children and adults with developmental and other disabilities, seniors who need in-home services.  Advocates claimed that those persons would lose critically needed services because thousands of workers would leave the program if wages were rolled back.
Next Steps In Legislative Budget Process:
* The actions by both subcommittees will be approved next week by the full budget committees in both houses.  In theory, because both houses exactly agree on rejecting the Governor's proposal, this issue should not go to the joint budget conference committee.
* That special committee, which could meet as early as next week, is made up of 2 Democrats and 1 Republican from both the Assembly and Senate to resolve any differences in actions taken.  However the Schwarzenegger Administration could request - as Governor Davis' Administration did last year, for certain issues, even if both houses agreed, to be brought up in the budget conference committee.
* Evenutally - around mid to late June, both houses will take final votes on the full budget and related budget legislation (including those impacting IHSS, etc).  Most Capitol observers predict an on time budget - meaning a budget passed by the Legislature on or before June 30.  Until that happens - and until the Governor signs off on the budget and related legislation, nothing is final.

IHSS EMPLOYER OF RECORD/ADVISORY COMMITTEES
What the Governor Proposes:  To repeal existing state law that requires counties to establish an IHSS "employer of record" state funding for IHSS public authorities and public authority advisory committees
What the Legislature Has Done as of 5/20/04:
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 previously voted to reject the Governor's proposal and restore funding on this issue at a previous hearing held on April 28 by a vote of 3-0.
Roll Call Vote 4/28/04: Assemblymembers Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) , Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th District) and John Laird (D-Santa Cruz, 27th District) voting AYE.
Assemblymembers Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut, 60th District) and Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta, 66th District) were not present and did NOT vote.
* The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 took the same action at their hearing on yesterday, May 20.
Roll Call Vote 5/20/04: Senators Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd Distinct), Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles, 22nd District), Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento, 6th District), all voting AYE.
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, 19th District) and Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz, 15th District)  were not present when the vote was taken - coming into the hearing afterwards.  They can add their votes to actions taken by the subcommittee - but it is not known as of this writing how they voted.  Their votes would not change the outcome however.
What Does The Legislature's Actions Mean as of 5/20/04: See above -  actions have same meaning as the IHSS Provider Worker wages
Who This Impacts:  Tens of thousands of children and adults with developmental and other disabilities, seniors who need in-home services, with potential loss of workers, registry of workers (including investigation of qualifications and background checks of potential workers, and training for existing workers)
Next Steps In Legislative Budget Process:  See above - same as the next steps regarding IHSS Provider Worker wages

IHSS RESIDUAL PROGRAM
What the Governor Proposes:  The Governor's original proposal in November called for the complete elimination of the IHSS "Residual Program" - the part of the IHSS program that serves 75,000 children and adults with developmental and other disabilities and seniors. A significant part of that program includes over 20,000 people who are permitted - under strict eligibility and income requirements, to have as their in-home worker, their parent (of minor children with developmental and other disabilities) or their adult spouse who has developmental or other disabilities/qualifying senior.  The Governor proposed that the elimination be effective for the current budget, as of April 1, 2004.  The Legislature refused to act - and the Governor later, on April 22, (and in his May 13th revised budget proposal) rescinded that proposal, and instead proposed to seek federal matching funds.  The proposal seeks an exception or waiver to existing federal Medicaid regulations, that would permit the services under the IHSS "residual program" to be supported with federal matching funds (including relatives who are in-home workers; advance pay option, domestic services, protective supervision).  Currently the IHSS Residual Program is only supported by state and local funding.
What the Legislature Has Done as of 5/20/04:
* The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 voted:
- Approved the Governor's May 13th revised budget proposal that rescinded his earlier proposal to eliminate the IHSS residual program, and restored full funding for current budget, and funding (assumes federal matching funds) for 2004-2005.   Note: that assumption also assumes rollback of IHSS worker wages - which means the proposal to the federal government would need to be amended if the Governor's proposal to rollback the wages is rejected and approved in the final budget for 2004-05.
- Approved 6 of the 9.5 state staff positions requested by the Governor in his May 13th revised budget for the purpose of overseeing implementation of the federal matching funds proposal
- Approved the intent of the Legislature for legislative (trailer bill) budget language to implement the IHSS federal matching funds (waiver) proposal and facilitate the transition of IHSS recipients from the current state/locally funded only IHSS Residual Program into a state/local and federally funded IHSS Residual Program
- Voted to retain the existing state laws for the current IHSS Residual Program as the framework for the IHSS Residual Program that will be matched by federal funds.
Roll Call Vote 5/20/04: Senators Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd Distinct), Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles, 22nd District), Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento, 6th District), all voting AYE.
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, 19th District) and Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz, 15th District)  were not present when the vote was taken - coming into the hearing afterwards.  They can add their votes to actions taken by the subcommittee - but it is not known as of this writing how they voted.  Their votes would not change the outcome however.
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee previously approved on May 17th, the Governor's May 13th revised budget proposal that rescinded his earlier proposal to eliminate the IHSS residual program, and restored full funding for current budget, and funding (assumes federal matching funds) for 2004-2005.  Note: that assumption also assumes rollback of IHSS worker wages - which means the proposal to the federal government would need to be amended if the Governor's proposal to rollback the wages is rejected and approved in the final budget for 2004-05.
Roll Call Vote 5/17/04: Assemblymembers Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) , Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th District) and Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut, 60th District)
Assemblymembers John Laird (D-Santa Cruz, 27th District) and Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta, 66th District) were not present and did not vote.
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee voted on May 20 3-0 to:
- Approved the intent of the Legislature for legislative (trailer bill) budget language to implement the IHSS federal matching funds (waiver) proposal and facilitate the transition of IHSS recipients from the current state/locally funded only IHSS Residual Program into a state/local and federally funded IHSS Residual Program
- Voted to retain the existing "components" of  the current IHSS Residual Program as the framework for the IHSS Residual Program that will be matched by federal funds.
Roll Call Vote 5/20/04: Assemblymembers Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) , Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th District) and John Laird (D-Santa Cruz, 27th District) voting AYE.
Assemblymembers Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut, 60th District) and Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta, 66th District) were not present and did NOT vote.
What Does The Legislature's Actions Mean as of 5/20/04:  Though no final legislative budget related language was passed - both houses clearly will insist on language that will protect current eligibility and benefits of the  IHSS Residual Program whether or not the federal matching funds proposal is approved by the federal government.  The Assembly Budget Subcommittee action on May 17th however may differ slightly with the Senate Budget Subcommittee action of May 20th in terms of staffing, which could send the budget issue to the joint budget conference committee.
Who This Impacts:  75,000 child and adults with developmental and other disabilities/seniors who depend on the IHSS Residual Program.
Next Steps In Legislative Budget Process:  See above - same as the next steps regarding IHSS Provider Worker wages, though the issue of state staffing to oversee the federal matching funds proposal might go to the legislative joint budget conference committee due to a slight possible difference in approved staffing positions.

IHSS Shared Domestic Services
What the Governor Proposes:  The Governor originally proposed to eliminate coverage for shared domestic services when a person who receives those services reside with other family members.  The proposal would have meant a cut to the IHSS budget of $80.9 million for the 2004-2005 budget year ($26.3 million of that from state general funds).  Due to issues regarding conflicts with existing federal Medicaid regulations regarding comparability (the proposed elimination would result in Medi-Cal recipients being treated differently in the similar living situations), the Governor, in his revised budget proposal, issued May 13, rescinded that action and restored funding.  However the Governor also indicated then that it was the Administration's intention to propose to the federal government - for implementation in 2005-2006, a waiver or exception to those Medicaid regulations that would give authority to California to eliminate funding shared domestic services.
What the Legislature Has Done as of 5/20/04:
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 previously voted to approve the Governor's May 13th revised budget and restored funding for shared domestic services, at a previous hearing held on May 17, by a vote of 3-0.
Roll Call Vote: Assemblymembers Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) , Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th District) and Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut, 60th District)
Assemblymembers John Laird (D-Santa Cruz, 27th District) and Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta, 66th District) were not present and did not vote.
* The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 took the same action at their hearing on yesterday, May 20.
Roll Call: Senators Chesbro, Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles, 22nd District), Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento, 6th District), all voting aye.  Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, 19th District) and Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz, 15th District)  were not present when the vote was taken - coming into the hearing afterwards.  They can add their votes to actions taken by the subcommittee - but it is not known as of this writing how they voted.  Their votes would not change the outcome however.
What Does The Legislature's Actions Mean as of 5/20/04: See above -  actions have same meaning as the IHSS Provider Worker wages
Who This Impacts:  IHSS recipients eligible for shared domestic services to remain safely in their own homes.  Domestic services include sweeping, kitchen and bathroom cleaning, meal preparation and clean-up, laundry, shopping for food, changing bed linens.  IHSS recipients who lived in a shared living arrangement (such as their family) have these services pro-rated or reduced to mirror their use of "common" areas and shared meals with others in that household.  The Governor's original proposal would have impacted these services, which 39% of IHSS recipients, who live in these shared living situations, use.
Next Steps In Legislative Budget Process:  See above - same as the next steps regarding IHSS Provider Worker wages

IHSS Quality Assurance Initiative
What the Governor Proposes:  The Governor's May 13th revised budget proposal called for a "Quality Assurance Initiative" that with the intended outcome of reducing IHSS program costs and impose more statewide standards on how IHSS services were delivered.  The proposal in many ways is similar to a proposal by the Governor to impose statewide standards (or limits) to regional center funded community-based services. The IHSS Quality Assurance Initiative would reduce the IHSS budget for 2004-2005 by $17 million in state general funds (savings for the state).
What the Legislature Has Done as of 5/20/04:
* The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 voted:
- to adopt the intent for legislative (trailer bill) budget language to "assure the appropriate statutory framework for the IHSS program is in place to prevent fraud, protect consumer access to services, and achieve program integrity through quality control activities that assure that the level of IHSS services approved is based on the consumer's level of need."
- Approved $32.2 million in state general fund savings (or a reduction to the IHSS budget) resulting from the implementation of IHSS quality assurance activities [note: this increases what the Governor proposed in his 5/13 revised budget]
- Adopted the Governor's proposed funding increase and new positions for state level IHSS Quality Assurance activities
- Approved a $10.7 million increase in state general funds to the IHSS budget specifically to support local (county) IHSS Quality Assurance activities.
Roll Call Vote: Senators Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd Distinct), Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles, 22nd District), Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento, 6th District), all voting AYE.
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, 19th District) and Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz, 15th District)  were not present when the vote was taken - coming into the hearing afterwards.  They can add their votes to actions taken by the subcommittee - but it is not known as of this writing how they voted.  Their votes would not change the outcome however.
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee took the same identical action on May 20th increasing the savings (or reduction to the IHSS budget) from $17 million to $32.2 million) and adopting the same legislative budget language as approved by the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3.
Roll Call Vote: Assemblymembers Dymally (D-Compton, 52nd District) , Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th District) and John Laird (D-Santa Cruz, 27th District) voting AYE.
Assemblymembers Robert Pacheco (R-Walnut, 60th District) and Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta, 66th District) were not present and did NOT vote.
What Does The Legislature's Actions Mean as of 5/20/04:  The Assembly subcommittee action rescinds their previous vote on May 17th that approved the Governor's proposed savings (or reduction to the IHSS budget) of $17 million), though no action on legislative budget language was taken at that time.
Who This Impacts:  Tens of thousands of children and adults with developmental and other disabilities, seniors who depend on IHSS services who will be impacted by any IHSS Quality Assurance activities; and counties, public authorities and the Department of Social Services - all who will have a part in implementing those activities.
Next Steps In Legislative Budget Process:  See above - same as the next steps regarding IHSS Provider Worker wages

SENATE PRESIDENT JOHN BURTON SAYS GOVERNOR'S BUDGET CUTS TO SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, SENIORS AND THE POOR "UNWORTHY OF CALIFORNIA" -  PROMISES FIGHT

SACRAMENTO -  Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco, 3rd District), the single most powerful member of the California Legislature, called Governor Schwarzenegger's proposed budget cuts to people with disabilities, the Blind, seniors and those impacting low income people as "absolutely unworthy of a great state, unworthy of a governor who does have compassionate - and concern for those less fortunate then he is" adding that ".. I am only one of 120 members of the State Legislature, but, my mother didn't bring me into this world to pick on poor people in order to solve problems that were not created by them" in a press conference held last Thursday (May 13) in the State Capitol.   [Note release of this CDCAN report was delayed due to operator error - I forgot to press "send"]

Burton, who, due to term limits will be forced out of the Legislature at the end of this year said, in response to a question if he was "happy" about some of the cuts that the Governor rescinded to health and human services, that "You know, it's nice that he [the Governor] didn't do what he shouldn't  have been done before.  I mean you're not going to get a lot of props from me for doing that. I mean I'd like to congratulate people for not robbing that banks and not running over people in the cross walks too".

Burton said he would be rather have a budget three weeks late if that meant protecting critical services for people with disabilities, seniors and low-income people, in response to a question about the importance of passing an on-time budget this year.
"If the budget is going to be three weeks late, and we're going to protect the most vulnerable in society, the world will little note nor long remember that three weeks.  I would remember for the rest of my life seeing old people going into the store that don't have pets and buying cat food instead of tuna fish.  So, on time budgets are very helpful - in the press. They mean nothing in the outside world. " said Burton.

Burton's press conference last week was in response to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's earlier press event at the Secretary of State Office Building Auditorium, where he unveiled his May revised budget proposal.  Advocates for children and adults with developmental and other disabilities and seniors are waging an all-out campaign to defeat the Governor's proposals regarding a proposed rollback in In-Home Supportive Services wages and benefits; pushing forward legislative budget language and emergency regulations that would put in place statewide standards that would limit regional center funded community-based services; cuts to SSI/SSP, proposal to impose a parental/family share of cost for children with developmental disabilities ages 3-17 receiving regional center services and more.

* Burton refused to come out for a tax increase at this point - though felt the rollback of the vehicle license fee will unfairly hurt people with disabilities, seniors and low-income families due to loss of critical funding for services.
* Senate Democrats met privately yesterday and today in part to discuss critical budget issues.
* The Governor's revised budget proposal needs approval of both the Senate and Assembly by 2/3rds vote, a total that requires votes from both parties.

SUMMARY OF KEY COMMENTS MADE BY SEN. BURTON AT 5/13 PRESS CONFERENCE
Sen. Burton:  "This budget is not worthy of the State of California.  The Administration claim that they want to maintain critical support for California's most vulnerable citizens - those who are risk - and want to recognize children as a priority.  Yet we take about a half a billion dollars away from the poorest children in the state, those whose parents are in the CalWORKS programs. Those kids whose parents or parent in most cases are following the federal law, following rather ignoble welfare reform put in place by President Clinton and in this state, see the money taken away from them that they so desperately need. In addition to this, not just taking away cost of living increases, reducing the grant money - which is low, but in addition to that, when the parents do go to work - when they get a job, and they go to work, but we still, because they are still at such a low level, trying to protect the children we limit those grants.  These people, when they go to work, have to pay for child care. They have to do certain other things that they are trying to accomplish to get out of the welfare morass into a productive role as taxpayers and contributors in society, and we make that more difficult.  CalWORKS is not what caused the budget problem. The people are doing what we asked them to do - not what we asked, but demanded that they do in the program. And they shouldn't be harmed by a budget problem that is no fault of their own."

Sen. Burton: "Then we take 1.2 million elderly, blind and disabled in the state - almost all of whom cannot work to make up any grant reductions.  And we don't want to give them not only any state COLA, [cost of living adjustment]  but we want to steal the money that the federal government gives them through the federal COLA  pass through.  This portion of the budget is absolutely unworthy of a great state, unworthy of a governor who does have compassionate - and concern for those less fortunate then he is...and those who are less fortunate than others. These are things that we are going to look very hard at, and in my opinion, I am only one of 120 members of the State Legislature, but, my mother didn't bring me into this world to pick on poor people in order to solve problems that were not created by them.  There are other parts of the budget that are basically are outside agreements.  Some of you people in the press don't fully understand the legislative process. But in  reading the paper you seem to think that if the Governor and an outside group make a deal, then all of a sudden then that's a deal, and  the Legislature's been by-passed. Well, as I've said downstairs [Senate Floor] time and time again, you can't go to the initiative ballot to get budget through. We can't be by-passed.  We are the ones that deal with the budget. The Governor proposes a budget. We dispose of a  budget. We are the ones to take the budget, work our will, up,  down or sideways - and send it back to the Governor, where the Governor can  then deal through  his veto power with a blue pencil, to reduce the amount of funding basically that he is legally entitled to do.  So I view all of the deals that have been cut as a suggestion from the Governor  in the  budget, just like the suggestions would have been made without these deals. The only thing that they do, is if the Legislature did decide to do something about K-12 education and followed the Governor's cuts in that or deferrals in that, that it is clear that the teachers organizations are not going to argue about that. So I mean it kind of gives one a pass there. On the higher ed stuff, I think here is great concern in our caucus about that.  And as I have said, there is a deal between the Governor, and I guess the presidents and I guess, the regents and the trustees.  And the only ones that really has concerns about this are probably the students, faculty and parents of the students, which probably total  more than you know, the trustees and the regents of the universities.  We have a concern about that. We do understand exactly why these deals were made. Don't necessarily agree with them from the standpoint of the university system and the state university system making them.  It is absolutely clear in my judgment, that unless the State hits the lottery or maybe goes into partnership with the [Indian] Tribes and some of the casinos, to get a lot more revenue in, that we're not going to be solving the State's fiscal problems.  We are delaying them, and sometimes by delaying a problem, you get to solve it later in an easier fashion. And sometimes delaying a problem it gets worse. Political decisions  if you put them off long enough, you find out most them take care of themselves. Unfortunately that's not necessarily true with fiscal problems, but we'll just have to see. I do look forward working with the Governor to try to deal how we're going to rectify our differences of opinions on this fiscal approach.  But sooner or later we are going to have to deal with the structural change.  I don't think anybody of any great intellect believes you can cut your way out of a structural problem...."

Question:  "Will you or your [Democratic Senate] caucus push for a tax increase?
Sen. Burton: "Why would one push further - I don't really know  what I'm going to do on that.  I mean, I want to do this, and he isn't going to do it, so he's standing up there doing nothing. We're just going have to see what balances what and what the great need is.  I'll tell you, you know  the amount of money that was given back to the VLF [Vehicle License Fee] was four times plus what this budget takes away from the poorest people in our State. And we wouldn't be in the toilet we're in today but for that. I understand, I  told the Governor today, I understand, you know, what he said in the campaign he was going to do it. As a person if he says he's going to do it and he's going to do it and he did it. But that $4 billion plus, much which went to people who didn't need the money because the bulk of it went to people with expensive cars, and you don't necessarily see a lot of poor people with expensive cars.  What are we doing?  We're screwing the poorest of the poor to pay for a tax break much of which went to the wealthy.  It goes against my sense of fairness if you well - as skewed as it might be."

Question: "There has been a lot of talk about an on time budget and " [interrupted by Burton]
Sen. Burton: "Oh yes, very important [sarcastically] We had three in the past twenty years. Yes, vital" [laughter]
Question:  "Will you take a lot at what's best for the state in terms of pushing for a better budget if its necessary to pass a deadline. How do you weigh getting an on time budget against..." [interrupted by Burton]
Sen. Burton:  "Screwing poor people, taking food out of the mouths of kids, elderly, blind and the disabled? Not much. If the budget is going to be three weeks late, and we're going to protect the most vulnerable in society, the world will little note nor long remember that three weeks.  I would remember for the rest of my life seeing old people going into the store that don't have pets and buying cat food instead of tuna fish.  So, on time budgets are very helpful - in the press. They mean nothing in the outside world. In the press it looks good, because, if you go down the street [people say] the budgets late - aren't they always late? We've had, since I've been in Sacramento, I think two really on time budgets. And that's when we had surpluses.  When you're in the shorts, it  takes more time to do it. I would hope we would have a budget that is on time.  Let me tell you, the money markets and the bond markets are going to look at whether or not its a sound budget. They would rather see, in my judgment, a sound fiscal plan that was five days late, then an unsound one that was ten days early, I would think."

Question: "Senator, are you at all relieved or happy to see the restoration of that he [the Governor]  put in from January, especially around Healthy Families and Medi-Cal?"
Sen. Burton: "They should have never been taken out. Why should I be happy about something that got fixed that never should have been broken?

Sen. Burton: Healthy Families is good. People make money out of Healthy Families,  not a lot - the health providers and everybody. Nobody is making money off of some kid of a mother whose husband has either left her or died, or even could have died in the gulf war and hat person is in the CalWORKS program, nobody is making off of that kid, except maybe the corner grocery store, you know, if their grant is not cut.  Nobody is making money out of elderly, blind, or disabled person who gets their full grant, except maybe the tuna fish people versus the cat food people. You know, it's nice that he [the Governor] didn't do what he shouldn't  have been done before.  I mean you're not going to get a lot of props from me for doing that. I mean I'd like to congratulate people for not robbing that banks and not running over people in the cross walks too".

Question: "The restoration of the health and human services do you think there is still too many cuts in the budget?"
Sen. Burton: "Well, Anybody with any brains would think so. I don't think that is a novel thing. When you knock $500 million out of the pockets of the poorest people of the state or more than that, counting the elderly, blind and disabled, about $700 million, yeah, I mean, whether there are cuts in that. To have the poorest of the poor pay what  basically was a tax cut for most of which went to wealthy people with very expensive cars, seems to be alittle bit weird. Doesn't send the right message about California or America. Doesn't say much about our values."