Hope you’re fine with the county parks and open space preserves: Once again Gov. Schwarzenegger thinks cutting $70 million in parks funding will somehow close the gap on a $20 billion deficit.
This is clearly a political stunt like it was the last time, but the stakes are far higher: California’s budget is hostage to income tax and sales tax revenues. When the economy slides, the state’s revenues nose-dive. The state will run out of cash next month if spending isn’t brought in line with revenues. Deficits are truly out of control now.
From this morning’s Mercury News:
Faced with a ballooning deficit and a clear signal that voters won’t pay more to fix it, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a budget plan Tuesday that would eliminate welfare, drop 1 million poor children from health insurance, cut off new grants for college students and shut down 80 percent of state parks.
In a state that long has prided itself on its social safety net, it could well go down in history as the most drastic reduction in social programs ever. And billions in further cuts will be unveiled later this week.
The governor’s proposal to whack an additional $5.5 billion from state programs stunned even longtime Capitol-watchers with its blunt force. Ending cash assistance for 1.3 million impoverished state residents, for example, would make California the only state with no welfare program.
“Every single first-world nation has a safety net program for children,” said Will Lightbourne, Santa Clara County’s social services director. “This would return us to the era of Dickens — you’d have to go back to the 19th century to find a comparable proposal.”
Proposing eliminating welfare and gutting aid to college students — like closing the state parks — hits voters where they live. While most of us middle class types don’t know any poor families that depend on state aid, we don’t want the state to let them starve. Nor do we want our state parks (which spend hardly anything in the grand budget scheme) shut down. And we’d prefer the state help us out with the skyrocketing cost of a college education.
Californians did a funny thing a few years back, as if they understood that they’d tax their neighbors (but not themselves) all the way to 100 percent if somebody let them. They voted in a law that says all tax increases must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Legislature. That came after passing a law way back (Prop. 13) saying property taxes didn’t have to keep pace with property values.
So now we’re in a situation where the small minority of lawmakers from Republican districts are standing in unison saying “we’ll bankrupt the state before we allow a tax increase” and everybody else is kinda/sorta nodding in agreement because raising taxes in a recession would be a bad idea anyway.
Frankly, state parks are the least of our worries in a crisis of this magnitude. The state can’t keep borrowing $20 billion a year to finance its deficits, but it also can’t really afford to cut spending when so many people are already out of work. It’s the worst of all possible worlds.
California can’t save but a pittance on parks because keeping them closed is not much cheaper than leaving them open so we of the hiking tendency might not suffer all that much.
Of course, something has always managed to bail Californians out of all previous crises like this one. Let’s hope the magic works again.
A federal bail-out is the only answer. Why not? It’s also infuriating to think of how many untold billions – perhaps trillions – have been wasted on war and military over the past decade. . .money that could be used to turn around ailing economies and help stave off these death-plunge cuts.
Up here in Washington State, we also face the threat of closures to state parks (and huge cuts to fill a $7 billion budget gap). Our legislature managed to save state parks by passing a $5 opt-out fee on motor vehicle registration. It’s a clever solution: the fee is voluntary but compliance is much higher if it’s an opt-out fee. You can read more here:
http://www.wta.org/trail-news/news/state-parks-saved
It is always fun to read how politicians interpret the polls. I can tell you that my no votes had nothing to do with my desire to pay more for services. On the contrary, I wouldn’t mind paying more, if our elected officials would do the job that they signed up for. But they keep punting and letting a handful of voters to “decide” no win choices.
The sad thing is that we can’t fire the lot of them, because most of them our outside our districts. And yes, I voted against the incumbents last time around.
This doesn’t have a whole lot to do with hiking, but I sure feel like getting outside today.
It’s so sad that they keep attacking the state parks… especially since it is such a small portion of the budget AND our state parks attract people from all over the world (we have the world’s tallest trees in some of our state parks!!!) I do like the “opt-in” registration fee idea Mr. Engelson says Washington has implemented. I believe they were tossing that idea around CA but it was $10 and California residents would get free admission to all State Parks.
I must be missing something here–or the Chron’s article didn’t go into enough depth, but it doesn’t add up. According to the front page article, “Governor proposes $5.5 billion in budget cuts (5/27/2009) Schwarzenegger wants to cut $70 million for state parks (of the $150 million they now receive).
However, an accompanying article, “Cuts could close 223 state parks” (pg. 12) tells us that 79.6 million people visited state parks last year. Don’t most people have to pay to enter the state parks? I figure that if the average visitor paid $2 to enter, that would be almost $160 million dollars. Last time I looked, the entry fees (where charged) averaged considerably higher than $2 per person. What am I missing?
The sad thing about it is, if state parks do close, not only do we lose the use of them, and the personnel lose their jobs, but re-opening them in the future will be horrendously expensive because of the neglect.
> A federal bail-out is the only answer. Why not?
Umm, because its not the responsibility of the federal government or the US taxpayer to bail out the (IMHO) intentional fiscal irresponsibility of the California populace? (Nevermind the issue that the US government is effectivly broke and simply does not have the money to bail out all of the ailing municipalities and state governments)
The *real* answer is that CA needs a constitutional converntion and the current system needs to be scrapped enmassse and replaced with something workable. Its absurd that a state with Californias industry base cannot sustain itself.
For those that are so inclined, last week’s Economist had an excellent article on the CA budget situation.
With that said, its a damn shame that the park system is once again being used to stimmer up public emotion. The park budget is not the cause of our financial distress and closing the parks (as if this were even possible with many of them) will solve nothing.
I’ve already e – mail bombed the governor, my state senator and assemblymember. Unless we’re heard, they’ll presume the issue is of little interest to us.
Lots of good points here, though. Common sense left the state budget process decades ago; now we’re saddled with a bunch of losers who feel the voters should make budget decisions for them – hey, if you don’t take a stand, how much easier will reelection be in 2010?
My current assembly member has had her job since the beginning of this year. Now, with all those weeks of experience and “take charge” leadership behind her, she’s running for Congresswoman Tauscher’s job. It’s the mindset of career politicians, that of self preservation at all costs, that have me looking for an “anybody but…” candidate next year.
Sacramento is a cesspool of bureaucracy and incompetence. A complete restocking with more “common sense” alternatives might save this state….
From the Sacramento paper:
By and large, the parks that would remain open are state beaches and those parks popular among users of motorized vehicles such as boats, 4x4s and ATVs. Many beaches attract enough visitors to operate from parking, admissions and concessions fees, while the other parks receive gas tax funds.
But parks best suited for campers and hikers wouldn’t fare so well. The governor’s plan would close noted sites such as Calaveras Big Trees, Anza-Borrego Desert, Mount Tamalpais and Mount Diablo. Even on foot, hikers would likely be prohibited from entering closed state parks, according to Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer.
So…they’ll close the park to save money, then have to pay twice as much to hire all that private security to keep us out, right? Anza Borrego? That’s half the Southern CA desert, and I’ve only seen rangers/improvement at the visitor center in Borrego Springs (palms?). 99% of that park’s trails and roads are remote and ungated, and surely rarely patrolled as it is (with the exception of border patrol, and I doubt they’ll be interested in wasting their time enforcing the closure of the park – I’ve seen them out there and they’ve just glanced at us and moved on to more interesting targets).
I’m sure it’s all political posturing, because the ‘closure’ of these parks down to the foot traffic level is simply unmanageable.
Parks that will remain open:
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1900388.html
Parks to be closed to the public:
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1900390.html