![](3D"cid:image003.jpg@01C8C239.76168190")
FAQ’=
s:
State Budget- May Revise
Why Califo=
rnia
State PTA continues to say: Flunk the Budget.
Based on the severe cuts that continue to be proposed by the
Governor, California State PTA is opposed to the May revision of the state
budget. To assist our members in communicating our concerns we’=
ve
prepared the following set of questions and answers.
Q: I=
’ve
heard that the revised budget recently proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger
restores the funding to schools and means education programs won’t be
cut. Is this accurate?
A: No. The Governor&#=
8217;s
first budget released in January proposed the most severe cuts to schools in
our state’s history. Parents, teachers and other education advocates
across California have been vehemently protesting these cuts. Unfortunately,
the Governor’s most recent budget proposal (“the May ReviseR=
21;
released on May 15) – while restoring some of the funding into the
education budget – would still significantly under-fund our schools a=
nd
force more than $4 billion in cuts to education programs. That’s why =
the
PTA opposes this most recent budget. It still flunks the basic test of good
government: It hurts our kids.
Q: B=
ut,
doesn’t the May Revise fully fund Proposition 98 – the
state’s minimum guarantee for education funding levels?
A: The May Revise wou=
ld
meet the minimum legal funding level for schools, but it still propo=
ses
far less than the minimum amount needed by schools to pay for the increa=
sed
costs just to keep programs at their current levels. The May Revise wou=
ld
eliminate annual cost of living adjustments to schools, despite the steadily
increasing operating costs for local districts. Once again, schools a=
nd
students are being asked to do more with less. In addition, this
budget proposal would make across-the-board cuts to many vital programs that
contribute to student achievement and engagement, such as class size reduct=
ion,
arts and music, instructional materials, and career technical education
programs. While the May Revise proposes to partially restore some
cuts from the January budget proposal, it still cuts billions of dollars fr=
om
public education. All cuts hurt students and California’s schoo=
ls
are already woefully under-funded.
Q: H=
ow
would it impact children’s healthcare?
A: If the May R=
evise
is implemented, it would impose new, draconian policies in the Medi-Cal and
Healthy Families programs that would result in more than 500,000 California
children losing their health coverage over the next two years —
increasing the number of uninsured children in California by 70%.
Q: W=
hat
about programs for foster children and working families struggling to make =
ends
meet?
A: The proposed budget
would eliminate financial assistance for 200,000 children whose parents are=
in
the CalWORKs program – often single mothers working their way out of
poverty. It would also cut $84 million from the child welfare services budg=
et,
limiting counties' ability to ensure the safety and well-being of the more =
than
70,000 California children in foster care. It would reduce state funding for
child care and development programs in 2008-09. This budget would also make
across-the-board reductions for a number of programs that assist children a=
nd
families, including the Child Welfare Services Program, the Foster Care
Program, the Adoption Assistance Program, and the California Food Assistance
Program.
Q: D=
oes
this budget proposal include any new proposed revenues or does it rely full=
y on
cuts to balance the budget?
A: A few fee increase=
s are
proposed, such as a state park admission fee increase of $1, and student fee
increases to the UC and CSU systems and a $6 - $12 annual surcharge on
homeowners’ insurance to fund emergency response services. The Govern=
or
has also proposed a plan to borrow money from future State Lottery revenues=
to
help balance the budget. This proposal would need to be placed on the
ballot as a measure to be approved by California voters in November. In the
event the voters reject the Lottery ballot measure, the Governor is asking =
the
Legislature to support a 1% increase in the state’s sales tax
rate. By and large, the May Revise continues to rely mostly on a
“cuts-only” approach to closing the budget deficit gap.
Q: W=
hat’s
PTA’s solution to address the budget deficit and provide necessary fu=
nding
for schools and other children’s services?
A: PTA continues to
advocate for a balanced approach – one that generates enough revenues=
to
prevent cuts to education and children’s services and recognizes the =
need
to invest in our children’s futures.
Q. S=
o,
what’s PTA’s message moving forward?
A: Our message has an= d will remain the same since January: no cuts that harm children or California’s future. We must continue to “flunk the budget” because it contains severe cuts to education and childrenR= 17;s services. We believe legislators and the Governor must develop a bala= nced solution that allows us to invest in our children’s future and the fu= ture of the state. And we must raise our voices throughout this spring and summer on behalf of California’s children, they did not create this financial crisis, and their future should not be undermined because of it.<= o:p>
Q: W=
hat
can PTA members do to help protect school funding and children’s
services?
A: Help us ensure chi=
ldren
have a voice in this debate, now through the end of summer. Please call your
local state assembly and senate representatives. Let them know you do not w=
ant
to see cuts to children’s services, and that you expect them to find a
balanced approach that invests in our children’s future and the futur=
e of
our state. You can find their names and contact information on-line at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/y=
ourleg.html.
Just enter your zip code, and your elected officials’ contact informa=
tion
will appear. They are YOUR representatives in Sacramento – are =
they
representing your interests?
"Since
January, parents and community members throughout the state have raised the=
ir
voices in overwhelming opposition to the damaging cuts to education and chi=
ldren's
services proposed in the state budget. The May Revise appears to reflect so=
me
of those concerns by not suspending the minimum education funding guarantee.
However, there is still much work to be done by the Legislature and Governo=
r to
ultimately ensure a balanced budget solution that does not jeopardize the
health, safety and education of our children and our future workforce. Many
essential programs and services are still extremely vulnerable. California
State PTA will continue to carry the message that shortchanging education
funding and services to children is the most expensive mistake California c=
an
make.
“The
dialogue at the Capitol needs to continue moving towards how much we should
invest in our children and California’s future, not how much can we
afford to cut. California has been operating for too long with a broken,
outdated budget process. By adequately investing today, we can ensure that
California has a viable economy in the future.
“Now
is the time to invest in our children and in the future of California.̶=
1;
Pam
Brady, California State PTA President