“Proposals to shift costs and responsibilities to state governments, masqueraded as giving states greater flexibility, would undermine California’s hard-fought-for fiscal health and force state leaders to reduce vital services and supports for millions of Californians struggling to make ends meet,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget and Policy Center, a nonprofit that advocates for the state’s low-income residents. An early review by Hoene’s organization also noted the Trump administration proposes the elimination of emergency food and shelter programs that provide some $20 million in help to Californians each year.
The analysis presented by the California Budget and Policy Center provides figures and recommends increasing the promotion of these services, improving parental education and helping them overcome language barriers, to take advantage of subsidized early education. “This analysis highlights, for example, the large number of Latino children – approximately 1 million – who are eligible for subsidized care but are not enrolled in a state program,” said Chris Hoene, executive director of the center. The study, led by Kristin Schumacher, is the second part of an organization’s research effort to outline key aspects of California child care services.
Jonathan Kaplan, senior policy analyst at the California Budget and Policy Center in Sacramento, said Title II teacher training programs are still at risk. The elimination of the Title II programs would “disproportionately affect students from low-income families because dollars for these programs are targeted to these learners,” Kaplan said. If federal support for teacher preparation programs were eliminated, Kaplan added, every school in California would be affected, but particularly schools in inland parts of the state where teacher shortages are the most severe, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and where there are more low-income students who would benefit from qualified teachers. “It’s a cruel irony,” Kaplan said.
“What We’re Watching for in the Governor’s May Revision,” by the California Budget & Policy Center: “The following are five key issues that we’ll be watching for in the Governor’s May Revision and in the budget deliberations that follow in the coming weeks. 1. Updated Revenue Projections and Their Implications … 2. ‘Un-Pausing’ Plans to Boost Investment in Early Care and Education … 3. Strengthening, Expanding, and Promoting the CalEITC … 4. The State’s Use of Prop. 56 Tobacco Tax Revenues That Go to Medi-Cal … 5. Shifting In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Costs From the State to the Counties.”
“All state and local governments lose in this scenario — blue states [just] lose more,” said Chris Hoene of the California Budget and Policy Center. Without taxpayers’ ability to write off some of their state taxes, all states would feel at least some increase in taxpayers’ opposition to higher levies. That’s “why historically, when the state and local deduction has been challenged . . . state and local leaders have overwhelmingly rejected that idea, regardless of party.”