CDCAN
CALIFORNIA DISABILITY
COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK
DISABILITY RIGHTS
NEWS REPORT
#037-2006 April 10, 2006
Monday
Advocacy Without Borders:
Connecting people with disabilities & seniors to rights and unified
action
1225 8th
Street Suite 480 - Sacramento, CA 95814 916/446-0013 Fax:
916/446-0026
Marty Omoto - director email: martyomoto@rcip.com
website: www.cdcan.us
California State Budget
* CDCAN VOTE RECORD
REPORT ON SSI/SSP
* ADVOCATES PUSH REPEAL OF LAST YEAR'S SSI/SSP COST OF
LIVING CUT
* WANT SEN BUDGET COMMITTEE TO REJECT GOVERNOR'S CAPI
PROPOSAL
SACRAMENTO - Advocates for people with disabilities, low
income seniors and families are pushing the Legislature to rescind last year's
budget action that authorizes the State to withhold for the first three months
of 2006 and 2007, federal money meant for increases in cost of living for
hundreds of thousands of the lowest income people with disabilities, people who
are blind, seniors and families who receive the federally funded Supplementary
Security Income (SSI) for basic living expenses. That proposal by the
Governor was passed by both houses of the Legislature last July as part of the
July 2005-June 2006 State Budget and included the suspension for two years,
beginning January 2006, of increases in State money for the State Supplemental
Payment or SSP portion of the cash grants. A new proposal by the Governor to
extend withholding of federal money meant for increases of costs of living for
SSI recipients was rejected by both houses however.
Advocates
called the withholding of federal money meant for SSI recipients and diverted
for other State general fund purposes, and the suspension of the state cost of
living for SSP recipients as "morally wrong" and a "devastating cut" to the most
vulnerable Californians, citing increased costs in housing, food and
transportation and additional new costs related to the new federal Medicare Part
D Drug Program. [Note: CDCAN will be releasing a new revised action
alert letter later today - see Action Alert or go to CDCAN website tonight at www.cdcan.us]
Advocates also oppose
the Governor's proposal to extend the "deeming period" from 10 years to 15 years
for persons who entered the US on or after August 22, 1996, who are in need of
assistance through the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) . The
"deeming period" is the time period when
the income and resources of the person sponsoring the person coming into the US,
are taken into account when determining benefit eligibility.
Actions Taken By Both Houses
on SSI/SSP and CAPI
* The full
Senate Budget Committee voted on January 26, followed by identical action by the
Assembly Budget Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services on March 29, to
reject the Governor's new proposal to extend the withholding of federal
money meant for increases in cost of living for SSI/SSP recipients for another
15 months beginning April 2007 and ending June 2008
* Both houses
however have not taken action yet on the issue of repealing last year's
budget action that withholds the federal cost of living increases for SSI/SSP
recipients for the first three months of 2006 and 2007.
* Some
advocates however believe that Assembly Budget Subcommittee intended to take
that action, but the motion was not clear and are working to clarify what
happened.
* The Assembly Budget Subcommittee also took action on March
29 to reject the Governor's proposal regarding Cash Assistance Program for
Immigrants, while action on that issue is still open in the Senate.
.Background of SSI/SSP and
CAPI
* The SSI/SSP program
provides cash grants to persons who are elderly, blind and/or with disabilities,
and unable to work and who meet the programs federal income and resource
requirements. The total proposed State budget for July 2006-June 2007 (state and
federal funds) for the SSI/SSP program is $3.6
billion.
* The SSI program is
administered by the federal Social Security Administration and in California,
overseen by the Department of Social Services, which also oversees the SSP part
of the grant.
* The Social Security Administration determines
eligibility, computes grants, and disburses monthly payments to recipients. The
state establishes the rant level of (SSP) State Supplementary Payments for
individuals, which is funded only by State money.
* SSI/SSP grant levels vary based on
a person's living arrangement, marital status, minor status and whether
she or he is a senior, blind or a person with disabilities.
* SSI/SSP recipients are not eligible
in California for Food Stamps.
*
Persons who receive SSI/SSP are eligible for the Aged, Blind or Disabled
Medi-Cal Program with no share of costs, for the In-Home Supportive Services
(IHSS) program and may be eligible for other programs designed to help people
remain in the community.
* Currently
about 1,212,000 Californians receive SSI/SSP in 2005-2006, with that number
expected to grow to 1,241,000. Of that number about 700,000 are persons
with developmental and/or other disabilities, about 300,000 low income seniors
and about 2% persons who are blind. Of the total SSI/SSP recipient
population, 8% percent of SSI/SSP
recipients are under age 18, 49% of the SSI/SSP recipients are between ages 18
to 64, and 43% are age 65 and older [Department of Social Services and
Senate Budget Committee figures]
* As
of April 2006, the maximum grant will be $836 per month for a senior or person
with disabilities, living independently and $1,472 per month for an aged or
disabled couple living independently.
* The Governor and the Legislature previously passed and enacted as
part of previous state budgets, suspensions of State cost of living adjustment
(for January 2004, January 2006 and January 2007) that impact the SSP portion of
the SSI/SSP grant. The Governor and Legislature also approved withholding
the federal increase to SSI for three months (recipients will receive the
federal increase on April 2006 and April 2007 instead of January of both years.
The Governor's July 2006-June 2007 budget proposal would have extended the delay
for another 15 months beginning April 2007. The federal money instead
would have been used to cover other state programs or help bridge the state
budget shortfall.
* The Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI)
is similar to the SSI/SSP program and was established in 1997 to provide cash
assistance to seniors, blind and persons with disabilities who are
also legal immigrants - persons who became ineligible for SSI as a result
of welfare reform. This state-funded only program is overseen by the Department
of Social Services and locally by the counties. CAPI grants are $10 less than
SSI/SSP grants for individuals and $20 less than SSI/SSP grants for
couples. older. The number of people receiving these grants (caseload) is
projected to decrease by 2.8% to about 7,817 persons per month (on average) in
2006-07. The Governor's proposal calls for extending the "deeming
period" from ten to fifteen years for immigrants who entered the country
on or after August 22, 1996. During the "deeming period", the income and
resources of the person sponsoring the immigrant are taken into account when
determining benefit eligibility.
Governor's Budget
Proposal Hit Poor and SSI/SSP Recipients Hardest Advocates
Say
* Last year's budget suspended
for two years (January 2006 and January 2007) the state cost of living increase
to the SSP portion of the grant, and delays for the first three months of 2006
and 2007, passing the federal cost of living increase to SSI recipients
(using those state and federal cost of living funds for other State budget
needs).
* That reduction to the SSI/SSP program was the largest single
budget cut impacting people with disabilities and seniors in the July 2005-June
2006 State budget passed last year by the Legislature.
* For this year, the Governor
proposed that the federal cost of living increase or adjustment (or "COLA)
due to be given to SSI recipients 3 months late in April 2007 be delayed
further, by a total of 15 additional months or another year and three months -
until July 1, 2008.
* That would mean SSI grants would be frozen from
April 2006 to July 2008 at a maximum of $836 for individuals and $1,472 for
couples per month, with the federal money meant for cost of living increases for
2007 and the first 6 months of 2008 diverted to other State budget needs.
The budget committees of both houses have rejected this proposal.
*
The delay would have resulted in a reduction (or savings to the state) to the
SSI/SSP program budget of $48 million in the July 2006-June 2007 budget, and
another $185 million in the July 2007 - June 2008 budget.
Next Steps
* SSI/SSP
Proposal Dead - For Now: While no budget action is final until a
budget is actually passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, the
strong and early action taken by both houses now rejecting the Governor's
proposal that would have extended by another 15 months beginning April 2007 the
withholding of federal money meant for cost of living increases for SSI/SSP
recipients, is considered dead - at least for now.
* Governor's
Revised Budget In May: Things could change depending on the State's economic
picture when the Governor releases his revisions to his proposed budget, in
Mid-May (referred to as the "May Revise" or the "May Revision") and what he
proposals in that revised budget.
* Last Year's SSI/SSP Budget
Action: Last year the Governor proposed and the Legislature approved the
withholding of federal funds for cost of living increases for people who receive
SSI portion for first three months of January 2006 and 2007, and a two year
suspension of State funds meant for cost of living increases for the SSP portion
of the grant, beginning January 2006. Advocates and some legislators were
pushing that this action be rescinded and funds restored. Neither house
has taken any action on this yet - though some advocates say that the Assembly
Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services intended to take that action on
March 29, though the motion made by Assemblymember Hancock was not clear and
needs to be clarified. Budget committee staff in both houses however take
the position that no action has been taken yet regarding last year's changes
made to the SSI/SSP program.
Budget Committee Members from Both Houses Make Strong Comments on
SSI/SSP Proposal
At the March 29
Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing, Assemblymember Hector De La Torre
(D-Southgate, 50th District) chair, pointed to a large stack of over 600 letters
from people across the State opposing the Governor's proposal and noted
that huge response, and the public testimony during the hearing saying
that "...I personally believe that, as someone said from the audience, that when
the Federal government sends money [for SSI], it needs to go to that
person. I don't understand on a policy level how we can justify
intercepting money meant for the recipients..."
Assembly Budget
Subcommittee members present at the time of the March 29 vote - Assemblymembers
Hancock, Mullin and Niello all announced their opposition to the Governor's
proposal at the hearing - though Niello echoed his Republican counterparts in
the Senate by asking that the subcommittee identify or suggest other areas of
the State budget for reductions to cover their action.
At the January 26 hearing of the
full Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San
Diego), who chairs the Senate Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services,
which covers many of the programs and services impacting people with
disabilities and seniors, said that the SSI cost of living adjustment
are "...federal funds specifically for
the purpose of providing a COLA [cost of living adjustment] for SSI recipients.
So I view this one as stealing money. It's not the same as general fund
expenditures. Its not the same as the state COLAs - which I am not happy
with [the action by the Legislature to suspend it], but we already agreed to
delay. This is the federal funds portion only. And basically what we [the
State] are proposing to do is to take those federal funds, as little as
they are, from the senior citizens they were designed to
support."
At that same hearing,
Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) wondered how the budget could absorb
the costs without making other spending cuts. He attempted to amend
Ducheny's motion by adding an additional proposal to eliminate thousands of new
state employee positions and force the Schwarzenegger Administration to
justify each position one by one as a means of "balancing the ledger".. Senate
Budget Committee Democrats opposed the McClintock motion, preferring to deal
with the proposed new state employee positions during the regular budget
subcommittee hearing process.
Sen.
Ducheny, clearly troubled by the Governor's SSI/SSP proposal said at the January
26th Senate Budget Committee hearing that "with great reluctance last year as
I recall, we agreed to delay the federal COLAs [cost of living adjustments]
until April for both the current year and now what would be the budget
year...it seems to me it was already a two year deal - we didn't want to that in
the first place. We can argue about it the rest of the year when these revenues
come in about whether we should allow the federal COLAs back in January. But it
seems highly inappropriate to change that deal in the middle of it. You
can argue about 07-08 [budget year] next year - but you're [looking
at the Governor's Department of Finance] really proposing things about 07-08
and to change what we did last year. If you need space to find how to replace
it, I suggest the first thousand new positions that you proposed in this budget
in Health and Human Services would be places that we can eliminate and start
from scratch if we need to find replacement revenue right away. I think we all
enter this process understanding the COLA [delay of the federal cost of
living adjustment] right now is April 06 and April 07 and that we then take
the budget with that as the understanding as try to find the savings that are
necessary and deal with some of the issues like unallocated cuts and current
laws and expansions. In a form of a motion, I move that we deny the
proposal to delay the [SSI/SSP] COLA for an additional 15
months."
At the same January 26th Senate Budget Committee Hearing,
Sen. McClintock while conceding the motion had "obvious" support, but that
the Governor's proposed budget already calls for major increases in spending
saying that "now we are already going to spend $5.9 billion more than we take
in. We're looking at 8.3% one year increase in spending - which is an increase
in spending substantially faster than what we saw under the Davis
Administration. Could I get an indication from the majority [Senate
Budget Committee Democrats] how much more we will be adding to this budget
before we are done?"
Chesbro however was not persuaded by McClintock's
point, responding that "I think this lays down a serious challenge on how to
finance this. I think singling out the most vulnerable portion of our
population to bear to bear a highly disproportionate share of the burden
is wrong."
During that same hearing on January 26th, Sen. Sheila
Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) felt the arguments about finding funds to offset the cost
of restoring funding for SSI was wrong, telling the Senate Budget and Fiscal
Review Committee that "I think that taking the Governor's proposal about
stealing the federal money that was allocated specifically for this purpose and
holding that as the argument to be refuted by saying: how are you going to
replace that money? kind of turns the question on its head from my point
of view, and I speak in support of the motion. The question is why are we taking
federal funds specifically designated for poor, and blind and disabled people
and using that to fill a budget gap, and not to fill it very much. It's a great
big budget gap, and you take $48 million from the budget year we're
considering [the amount of the SSI federal COLA] and say, well
we're going to throw this in a very big bucket, when it hurts people much, much
more then it helps the State by taking that particular money. So I think the
question is not how shall we replace this little bit, but how shall we solve the
larger problem, which I think has been asked by both sides of the aisle, to
solve the structural [state budget] problem"
Before the
Senate Budget Committee took the vote January 26, the committee Vice Chair
Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta, 36th District) said "Mr. Chairman
[to Sen. Chesbro], before we take a vote on that [Ducheny motion to
reject the Governor's SSI proposal] lest the public watching think that
California is being stingy and the Governor's proposal is being stingy , I want
to point out that in comparison to other states, that the next closest state on
this [SSI/SSP grants] is $1,000, and we are at $1,500 per couple, $1,700
for blind and 1,008 for New York, for the next closest - and all the rest
is far below that - keeping things in perspective."
Sen. Chesbro
however disagreed with the perspective, saying that "Well my response
is, I challenge anybody in this [hearing] room to try to get by
with that amount of money anywhere in the State of
California."
Earlier during the January 26th hearing, the Governor's
Department of Finance Deputy Director Vince Brown gave an update of the proposed
budget to the committee, and said that it would
"fully fund the transfer
of $1.4 billion as I mentioned, we are proposing $920 million to prepay a
portion of the loan, and we also propose a constitutional amendment to protect
Prop 42 [transportation initiative] from future
suspensions."
Sen Kuehl, in later
exchange just before the January 26th vote on the Ducheny motion was
taken, with Sen. Hollingsworth, referred back to Brown's budget overview
on that point linking it to the Governor's SSI proposal of protecting some
funding and not protecting others:
Sen. Kuehl: "It's still federal
money, right?"
Sen. Chesbro: "Yes."
Sen. Kuehl: "They [federal
government] proposed it to the State for a COLA for this purpose? Is that
correct?"
Sen. Chesbro: "Correct."
Sen. Hollingsworth:
"However we did talk about the [State] general fund impact, of $48
million this year and over $180 million next year."
Sen. Kueh (voice
sounding sharp): "Well, take the Prop 42 [transportation initiative]
money and spend it for anything you want. I mean You can argue one way or
another, but not both."
CDCAN VOTE RECORD
REPORT
Senate Budget and
Fiscal Review Committee
Date: January 26, 2006
Total Members:
13
Democrats (8): Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata, 2nd District), Chair;
Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego,
40th District); Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego, 39th District); Sheila Kuehl
(D-Santa Monica, 23rd District); Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach, 27th District);
Mike Machado (D-Linden, 5th District); Jack Scott (D-Altadena, 21st District);
Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto, 11th District)
Republicans (5): Sen. Dennis
Hollingsworth (R-Murrieta, 36th District), Vice Chair; Bob Dutton (R-Rancho
Cucamonga, 31st District); Bob Margett (R-Arcadia, 29th District); Tom
McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks, 19th District); and George Runner (R-Antelope
Valley, 17th District)
Note: This action by the full Senate Budget Committee (as opposed to
the Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services) was unusual
because it was taken at its first meeting, January 26, when normally no actions
are voted on.
Budget Issue:
SSI/SSP (Federal cost of living increase)
Action 01/29606:
REJECTED Governor's proposal to delay (withhold) the 2007 SSI federal
cost of living adjustment until July 2008 and restored funding.
Vote:
7-4 (with 2 not voting/abstained or not present)
AYES Votes - 7
Democrats
Voting Aye (7): Chesbro, Duchney,
Kehoe, Kuehl, Lowenthal, Machado, and Scott
Republicans Voting Aye (0): -none-
NO Votes - 4
Democrats
Voting No (0): -none-
Republicans Voting No (4):
Hollingsworth, Dutton, Margett, and
McClintock
ABSENT, ABSTAINING OR NOT
VOTING- 2
Democrats absent/abstaining or not voting (1):
Simitian
Republicans absent/abstaining or not voting (1):
Runner
Next Steps: The Assembly
Budget Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services subsequently took the same
action on March 29. This means - barring any specific reversal by either house -
that the Governor's proposal is "dead". However it should be noted that no
action by either house or the Governor is final until a budget is passed by the
Legislature and signed by the Governor. The full Senate Budget Committee
or subcommittee took no action on the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants
(CAPI) proposal by the Governor - though the subcommittee did hear the
issue in early March, but left the item open for further action.
CDCAN VOTE RECORD REPORT
Assembly Budget
Subcommittee #1 on Health and Human Services
Date: March 29,
2006
Total Members: 5 (3 Democrats and 2
Republicans)
Democrats (3): Assemblymember Hector De La
Torre (D-Southgate, 50th District), Chair, Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley, 14th
District) and Gene Mullin (D-South San Francisco, 19th
District)
Republicans (2): Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis
Obispo, 33rd District), Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks, 5th
District)
Budget Issue:
SSI/SSP (Federal cost of living increase)
Action 03/29/06:
REJECTED Governor's proposal to delay (withhold) the 2007 SSI federal
cost of living adjustment until July 2008.
Vote: 5-0
AYES Votes -
5
Democrats Voting Aye (3): De La Torre, Hancock (made the motion),
Mullin (seconded motion)
Republicans Voting Aye (2): Blakeslee and
Niello
NO Votes - 0
ABSENT, ABSTAINING OR NOT VOTING-
0
Next Steps: This action was
identical (or "conformed") to the action taken by the Senate Budget and Fiscal
Review Committee on January 26. This means - barring any specific reversal
by either house - that the Governor's proposal is "dead". However it
should be noted that no action by either house or the Governor is final until a
budget is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. It does not
reverse previous action taken last year to withhold federal cost of living money
owed to SSI/SSP recipients for the first three months of 2006 and 2007 or
rescind the two year suspension of the State cost of living that began on
January 1, 2006. Some advocates believe that the Assembly Budget
Subcommittee in fact intended to at least rescind the withholding of federal
cost of living money for the first three months of 2007, though both the Senate
and Assembly budget committees officially do report that additional action.
Budget Issue: Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants
(CAPI)
Action 03/29/06: REJECTED Governor's proposal to extend
Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants deeming to 15 years. .
Vote:
3-1
AYES Votes - 3
Democrats Voting Aye (3): De La Torre, Hancock
and Mullin
Republicans Voting Aye (0): -none-
NO Votes -
1
Democrats Voting No (0): -none-
Republicans Voting No (1):
Niello
ABSENT, ABSTAINING OR NOT VOTING- 1
Democrats Absent/Abstaining or
Not Voting (0): -none-
Republicans Absent/Abstaining or Not Voting (1):
Blakeslee
Next Steps: The
Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services heard this issue in
March but did not take action and left open.
How To Receive CDCAN Capitol News Reports and Alerts
The California Disability
Community Action Network is a non-partisan link to tens of thousands of
Californians in every community, including people of color, people of every type
of disability, including people with physical disabilities, people with
developmental and other disabilities, people with traumatic brain and other
injures, people with mental health needs, seniors, people with MS, Alzheimer's
and others, and all of their families, community organizations and providers,
direct care and other workers, and other advocates. These action alerts and news
reports is for all of them. If you would like to get on this
distribution (and conversely, get off of it) please send an email with
that request to: martyomoto@rcip.com OR sign up via the NEW
CDCAN website at www.cdcan.us Sharing information is part of
our organizing effort. Please feel free to forward or copy this
(attribution is nice but not necessary). We're all in this together!
MANY
THANKS to Training Toward Self Reliance, UCP, California NAELA, The University
Affiliated Programs, CHANCE Inc, Parents Helping Parents, Arriba, Strategies
Toward Empowering People, Parents Helping Parents, Asian American parents
groups, Resources for Independent Living and many other Independent Living
Centers, several regional centers, People First chapters, IHSS workers, other
self advocacy and family support groups California Disability Rights Inc ,
developmental center families, and hundreds of individuals like Maureen
Fitzgerald, Terri Lantz, Christal Hopkins, Lisa Brown, Anna Wang, Dennis Dishaw,
Bob Benson, David Engberg, Connie Arnold, and so many others who through their
support and contributions, make the non-partisan CDCAN reports and townhall
telemeetings possible. Thanks also to partnerships and the good people
with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, and also the Department of
Health Services, the Department of Developmental Services, Department of Social
Services and the CA Health and Human Services Agency and other agencies, and the
State Legislature and staff, the Legislative Analyst Office. Good people
who do good things can make a difference together