California’s Budget Crisis and Immigrant Welfare: The Proposed Cuts to Programs for Legal Immigrants

In January of 2010, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed massive budget cuts for various California state-funded programs.  Among these cuts, welfare programs assisting legal immigrants to the state of California were extensively downsized.   In this set of posts, I first outline the proposed program cuts in detail, and then analyze their progress through the California legal system from 3 different lenses.  In Memo 1, I describe the initial process by which the program cuts arrived on the government decision agenda, looking specifically at Governor Schwarzenegger’s dominating role in placing them there.  Memo 2 looks at one of Schwarzenegger’s main opponents in attempting to pass these cuts: the experts at immigrants rights groups, especially the California Immigrant Policy Center.  Finally, in Memo 3, I explicate the role of the California Budget process in shaping these proposals to date, and how the California budget differs from the regular legislative process.

Each of these posts was created in response to the events surrounding the time of its writing.  Thus many of my arguments evolve over time to fit the still ongoing debate on the proposed program cuts.  I end my analysis with a prediction for the final results of the proposals.

Details on CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS

In his proposal, Schwarzenegger proposed to completely cut funding for three immigrant welfare programs.

The first, Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), is a relatively small program that helps seniors and the disabled to have access to food, medication, and other basic necessities.  It provides an average monthly grant of around $700 to approximately 8,500 disabled and senior immigrants statewide.  Cutting this program would be devastating to the elderly and vulnerable legal immigrant population.

The second is the Cash Food Assistance Program (CFAP), a food stamp program that was put in place specifically for legal immigrants who do not qualify for other state or federal food welfare assistance.  These immigrants are legal residents but have lived in the United States for less than 5 consecutive years.  About 31,000 low-income legal residents are currently enrolled in this program.

Finally, Schwarzenegger would also discontinue CalWORKS, California’s version of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.  CalWORKS provides basic cash assistance, job training, childcare, and other support to low-income families – it is currently available to lawful immigrants without a 5-year waiting period.  Approximately 24,000 immigrants within their first 5 years in status receive assistance under CalWORKS.

Memo 1: 04/09/2010

The California Budget Committee had many options to reduce California expenditures, and achieve a balanced budget.  For this reason, it is important to explore why among the many alternatives, welfare programs for legal immigrants were among the first to appear on California’s decision agenda.  In Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, John Kingdon explains: “There are three families of processes in federal government agenda setting: problems, policies and politics […] the key to understanding agenda and policy change is their coupling.”[1] Kingdon explicates the role that each of these families takes in the government’s deliberations, and how the separate streams can join to change policy agendas dramatically.  He often refers to a “policy window”[2] as the opportunity for policy enactment created by the coupling of these separate streams, and its placement on the decision agenda. The decision agenda is defined as small set of proposals that is currently being debated and decided on by politicians in positions of power.  One can apply these same ideas to California’s budget and program cuts to examine their role in catalyzing immigrant welfare to the forefront of policy change.

The first process stream that Kingdon discusses is that of problem recognition. He says that “we need to understand how and why one set of problems rather than another comes to occupy the attention of government officials.”[3] For the California government, the main problem is balancing the state budget.  Since 2004, and the passage of Proposition 58, the California governor has always been required to propose a balanced budget[4].  However, for the year of 2010-2011, California faces an estimated deficit of $19.9 billion[5], which must be made up either via additional revenues or decreased expenditures.  This deficit was propagated by an unexpected deficit of over $6 billion from 2009-2010 budget shortcomings.  Because it is difficult to increase revenues, Governor Schwarzenegger was forced to decide on a mix of state-funded programs to cut.  For California citizens this issue is extremely important.  In fact, in a recent poll taken by the Field Corporation, Californians rated the budget deficit as one of their two most important issues, second only to the current economic crisis as a whole.  A full 68% of Californians consider a balanced budget as an important issue in deciding whom they will vote for.[6] Thus, it is obvious that the budget deficit is a major problem affecting not only government officials, but also the entire California public.

The formation of policies as solutions naturally follows the recognition of problems, and is the second process stream that Kingdon discusses.  This stream is particularly important in understanding why welfare cuts for legal immigrants moved to the top of the decision agenda.  According to the California Immigrant Policy Center, immigrants constitute more than one-third of California’s workforce and account for approximately one-third of California’s GDP.[7] Because the immigration population is so relevant in California, policymakers see great potential for reducing expenditures by cutting welfare programs even for legal immigrants. Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed elimination of CAPI and CFAP would cut crucial welfare assistance to over 40,000 legal immigrants and save the state of California approximately $120 million dollars per year.[8] More significantly, the proposed elimination of CalWORKS would affect 24,000 legal immigrants and save California $1.2 billion in 2010-2011.[9] The appeal from the policy point of view is that these program cuts would affect only a small proportion of the state population, while reducing the deficit substantially in a quick time period.  More significantly, the elimination of these programs would encourage (force) impoverished immigrants to seek Federal aid, effectively passing the responsibility on to the national government.

Kingdon’s third and final process stream is politics, which analyzes the feasibility of passing a given proposal into law.  Having explored the problem of the budget deficit and the proposed policy solutions to cut welfare programs, the only missing piece is the political viability of such policy solutions.  With the politics of immigrant welfare proposals, it is necessary to examine the image in which immigrants are portrayed in California.  Because California has received such a large influx of illegal immigrants in recent decades, many Californians have become increasingly concerned with the immigrant population.  In a poll from the Field Corporation, 57% of Californians said that “illegal” immigrants have a negative impact on the state.[10] Moreover, 77% of Californians said that “illegal” immigration is still a serious issue.[11] Although these polls did not directly concern legal immigration, it is inevitable that all immigrants have become associated with undocumented immigrants, and much of the California population views immigration assistance in a critical light.  In their book Agenda and Instability in American Politics, Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones argue that this has significant political connotations: “When an issue emerges on the national agenda in an atmosphere of criticism […] conditions are ripe for the destruction or dilution of any policy subsystem that may have been created in the past.”[12] In this case, CAPI, CFAP, and CalWORKS are all “ripe” for dismantling.  Governor Schwarzenegger recognizes this situation, and takes advantage of his position by pushing his budget cut reforms through entrepreneurial politics.  That is, he pushes for the propositions as having widespread benefits, but only concentrated costs to a small population, as described in the Wilson-Lowi matrix.  Schwarzenegger also capitalizes on the fact that these immigrants, while legal residents, are not citizens and therefore cannot vote.  It is thus very difficult for the affected populace to make their voice heard on the ballot, and easier for the legislature to ignore their needs.  Although the magnitude of the costs to this impoverished and vulnerable immigrant population will be enormous, Governor Schwarzenegger focuses only on the benefits of a balanced budget for the state as a whole.

The policy window for immigration welfare reform has been opened by a combination of the problem, policy and political streams in California.  Governor Schwarzenegger has already submitted his proposals to take advantage of this policy window.  He hopes to make huge cuts to welfare programs for those legal immigrants who currently benefit from CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS.  By doing so, he will come closer to a balanced budget for the state of California.  However, the effects on the immigrant population will be disastrous, particularly if they are not able to secure Federal aid.  Given these effects, it remains to be seen whether the political incentive is strong enough for California government officials to pass into law these budgetary reforms.

---

[1] Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984. Print. 87-88

[2] Kingdon. 166

[3] Kingdon. 87

[4] “Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act.” California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Web. 09 Apr. 2010. <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm>.

[5] “2010-11 Budget Proposal: Solving California’s $20 Billion Deficit – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.” Web. 09 Apr. 2010. <http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/14147/>.

[6] DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Majorities Rate Jobs/the Economy, the State Budget Deficit, Education and Health Care as Top Issues in This Year’s Governor’s Race. Rep. no. 2334. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

[7] California Immigration Policy Center. The Cost of Cutting Immigrant Welfare Programs. Berkeley: California Immigration Policy Center, 2010. Print.

[8] The Governor’s Proposed Cuts to the SSI/SSP and CAPI Programs Would Affect Nearly 950,000 Californians. Rep. Sacramento: California Budget Project, 2010. Print.

[9] The Governor’s Proposed Budget Would Eliminate CalWORKS Cash Assistance. Rep. Sacramento: California Budget Project, 2010. Print.

[10] DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Growing Differences between Voters and Non-voters about Perceived Impact Illegal Immigrants. Rep. no. 2185. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

[11] DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Voters Favor Creating Opportunities to Legalize the Status of Illegal Residents and Back Policies Aimed at Reducing the Flow of Immigrants into the Country. Rep. no. 2229. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

[12] Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. Print. 84

Memo 2: 4/30/2010

California’s current budget crisis has forced several well-established programs to the brink of elimination.  Among these, welfare programs for legal immigrants to the state of California have been placed under intense scrutiny. Specifically, Governor Schwarzenegger proposes to completely terminate CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS.   These programs all apply to low-income, disabled, or elderly legal immigrants and provide welfare assistance that allows these immigrants access to basic necessities, such as food and health care.  The details of these proposals and their implications are described in more detail in previous entries.

While Schwarzenegger has been successful in pushing these budget cuts on to the government decision agenda, as discussed in Memo 1, he is facing heavy opposition in his attempt to actually pass them into law.  His most influential opponents, and the ones explicated in this analysis, are scholars and experts who argue in defense of immigrants’ rights.  Specifically, the reports created by analysts at the California Immigrant Policy Center (CPIC) have been of utmost importance in the debate of the proposed immigrant cuts.  These reports argue that not only are the cuts unfair and devastating to the immigrant population, they are economically inefficient for the state of California.  By appealing to the emotional side of the public, CPIC is able to gain media attention, and has had reports cited in numerous California newspapers. More importantly however, CPIC creates rational economic arguments about the cuts that provide legislators and political elites with solid evidence against their efficacy.  Thus far, the attempts of CPIC have been effective in shaping policy outcomes because of their ability to appeal to both of these groups.  This analysis will track the efforts of the CPIC as a membership group of experts to change the proposed reforms. It will then describe the effects on the opinion of the public, and subsequently political elites, on these issues.

In January of this year, Governor Schwarzenegger released his plan to balance the annual California budget, including the cuts to immigrant welfare programs.  Within days, the experts at CPIC responded with a report entitled Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Programs for Lawful Immigrants in California, in which they explicated the immediate impact of each of Schwarzenegger’s proposals on immigrants.  The report focused on the intrinsic importance of each of the programs, and the dire consequences that their elimination would cause.  CPIC purported to generate public sympathy for “California’s most vulnerable residents [who] are being asked to shoulder the burden of balancing the state’s budget.”[1] The language of the report also placed the blame squarely on Schwarzenegger, several times citing the proposals as specifically his, in a negative connotation: “the Governor has proposed to cut off all assistance to a very small number of families who would become destitute without this means of assistance.”[2] The purpose of this report was to generate public sympathy for the populace affected by the proposed cuts, and catalyze public action on the issue.

More recently, the CPIC has followed its initial report with a publicly accessible and informative pamphlet, detailing not only the negative impacts of the cuts on immigrants, but also the cost to the California economy as a whole.  Generally, the CPIC argues that “California will not be well-served by budget decisions that increase homelessness, emergency room use and put vulnerable seniors, the disabled and children at risk.”  The pamphlet then details the specific economic impacts of the elimination of CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS individually.  The analysts at CPIC conclude that savings from the cuts would be far lower than anticipated.  Additionally, health care costs would increase due to a lack of preventative care for low-income immigrants.  Finally, overall economic productivity in California would decrease as immigrants, who make up over one-third of California’s workforce[3], are forced to relocate.

In February of 2010, the economic forecasters at CPIC released “Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State.”[4] This report delves into deeper economic detail regarding the current positive impact that immigrants have on California’s GDP, and how this impact would be partially nullified if low-income immigrant families were forced to move due to welfare cuts.  CPIC cites the role of immigrants as entrepreneurs, and their strong presence in the manufacturing, agriculture, and service industries.  The analysis also stresses the heavy contribution that immigrants make through spending and tax contributions: Immigrants in California have a combined federal tax contribution of more than $30 billion annually.[5] The logic follows that if immigrants are denied welfare in California, their spending will decrease, and their tax contribution may disappear entirely if they relocate.   The report closes by emphasizing: “Immigrants often require the most assistance immediately upon arrival to the United States. As immigrants reside in the state for a longer period of time, they are less likely to use services and more likely to contribute significant amounts.”[6] This is clearly a call to California citizens and political leaders alike to realize not only that these program cuts are unfair, but also that they are economically unsound for California in the long run.

Having explored the efforts of the CPIC to change public opinion in the context of immigration welfare, it is important to understand the significance of these endeavors in actually shaping policy.  According to Frederick M. Hess, policy experts and analysts have a crucial role through their ability shaping public opinion.  In When Education Research Matters, Hess postulates that a main role of experts “Is not to dictate outcomes but to ensure that public decision-making is informed by all the facts, insights, and analyses that the tools of science can provide.”[7] There is clear evidence that CPIC fulfills this role effectively, provided mainly by their numerous citations in California newspapers and radio broadcasts.  The San Diego Union Tribune, the Fresno Bee, the Orange County Register, the Bay City News Service, and the Associated Press, among others, have all cited one of the three reports mentioned above in making arguments for California support of legal immigrants.  For example, in an article entitled Another Inconvenient Truth, the San Diego Union Tribune uses research conducted by the CPIC to refute the commonly held biases against immigrants.  Regarding immigrants: “Supposedly, whether they arrive legally or illegally, their chief ambition is to simply collect welfare, milk social services and otherwise sponge off America’s generosity.  This is just no so [and] that point was recently driven home again with the release of a new [CPIC] report.”[8] The article goes on to cite CPIC’s February report Looking forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State extensively.  Similarly, other newspapers cite CPIC reports to create arguments favorable towards immigrants.  Some newspapers also quote CPIC experts opinions, as Bay City News Service does in its article Report: Immigrants Contribute Greatly to California: “As lawmakers consider immigration reform, ‘it’s important to ensure the debate is informed and based on data,’ said CPIC director Reshma Shamasunder.”[9] It is clear that the opinion of CPIC experts is being widely circulated through media sources to much of the California public.  This is important to consider as public officials in making their policy decisions increasingly consider public opinion.  Although there have been no studies or polls on the effect of CPIC’s research, it is likely that its widespread media attention has made its findings highly influential.

While public opinion is important to consider, policy reform ultimately lies in the hand of legislators themselves.  Frederick Hess a
rgues that in addition to shaping opinions, experts have the role of informing political elites.  He states: “The cluttered informational environment requires that someone distill, explain, promote, and convey research to public officials if it is to be influential.”[10] The experts at CPIC play exactly this role, and fall into Hess’s definition of experts that are part of membership groups with interests and policy agendas.  According to their mission statement: “CIPC will work with legislators and advocates in Sacramento to support policies that promote pro-immigrant budget and fiscal planning, and address the needs of immigrants and their families through legislative efforts.”[11] CIPC experts work to convey their research to policymakers in the most direct manner possible.  In the past, CIPC has had success in its endeavors – in 2006 CIPC sponsored two bills that Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law.[12] Today, CIPC is still working to remove the welfare cuts from Governor Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal.  Already CIPC has seen some success – at the end of March senate subcommittee #3 voted down Schwarzenegger’s trigger proposal to eliminate all funding to CalWORKS, if necessary to balance the budget[13].  This was a victory, and a step in the right direction for proponents of immigrants’ rights across California.  However, the final outcomes of the efforts of the analysts at CPIC are not yet known, and will only be completely settled when California’s annual budget has been finalized.

---

[1] Cajina, Vanessa. Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Program for Lawful Immigrant in California. Rep. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.

[2] Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Program for Lawful Immigrant in California.

[3] The Cost of Cutting Immigrant Programs: Illness, Hunger and Homelessness. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.

[4] Reshma, Shamasunder, and Isabel Alegria, eds. Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State. Rep. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.

[5] Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State.

[6] Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State.

[7] Hess, Frederick M. “When Education Research Matters.” When Education Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy (2008). Web. 21 Apr. 2010.

[8] “Another Inconvenient Truth.” San Diego News, Local, California and National News – SignOnSanDiego.com. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/29/another-inconvenient-truth/>.

[9] “Report: Immigrants Contribute Greatly To California – News Story – KRXI Reno.” Reno – Lake Tahoe News, Weather, Sports & Entertainment – FOXReno. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.foxreno.com/news/22346175/detail.html>.

[10] Hess, Frederick M. “When Education Research Matters.” When Education Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy (2008). Web. 21 Apr. 2010.

[11] “Policy Center – CIPC.” Welcome to the California Immigrant Policy Center – CIPC. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. <https://caimmigrant.org/policy_center.html>.

[12] “Policy Center – CIPC.” Welcome to the California Immigrant Policy Center – CIPC. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. <https://caimmigrant.org/policy_center.html>.

[13] Omoto, Marty. “Senate Committee Rejects Governor’s Budget Pro.” CALegalAdvocates.org. Web. 26 Apr. 2010. <http://www.calegaladvocates.org/news/article.305036-Senate_committee_rejects_Governors_budget_proposals_to_cut_human_services>

Memo 3: 5/16/2010

As mentioned in Memo 1, California polls do show widespread negative sentiments towards immigrants, which may have enabled Governor Schwarzenegger to put the elimination of CIPC, CFAP and CalWORKS on his initial budget proposal.  However, public opinion also shows that California voters oppose cutting welfare programs for any population. In a recent poll of California voters, vast majorities opposed cutting state spending on health care programs for low income and disabled Californians (72% opposed) and Child care programs (66% opposed).[1] Additionally, the experts at CIPC have made marked progress since January to move both public and legislator opinion against the proposed cuts to welfare programs for legal immigrants.  Both of these factors should have influenced Governor Schwarzenegger to remove said proposals from the budget in his May revision.

Despite public opinion, in his revised budget proposal released on May 14^th, Governor Schwarzenegger continued to insist on proposals to terminate CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS.  In this situation, there is a clear disconnect between voter preferences and the proposals on the agenda.  These proposals actually more closely reflect Governor Schwarzenegger’s personal political ideals, which center around program cuts rather than tax hikes to balance the state budget.  The reason for this disconnect is the very process by which the proposals are being furthered – the disaster that is 2010 California State Budget.  Because Schwarzenegger is able to package proposals together, and bypass much of the typical policy-making process, he has furthered several pieces of legislation that would otherwise never have been considered.  While budget cuts do stem from financial necessity, Schwarzenegger is able to control which programs are most severely affected.

Unorthodox lawmaking in the United States has evolved since the 1800’s, and has become increasingly relevant over time.  Currently, one of the most utilized forms of unorthodox lawmaking is legislation enacted through the budget process.  As Barbara Sinclair explains in her book Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress, the budget process eliminates much of the usual political struggle involved in passing a bill.  It grants the head of the budget process, in this case Governor Schwarzenegger, disproportionately high power – mainly through the pressure for Congress to meet deadlines, and his ability to package legislation.  Sinclair says: “Through the budget process many changes in the policy can be made in one piece of legislation rather than a number of separate bills, so fewer battles have to be won.”[2] Although Sinclair’s text applies mainly to U.S. Federal lawmaking, many of her tenets apply directly to California State’s budget process as well.  The remainder of this memo will guide the reader through the importance of California’s budget process in placing CalWORKS, CAPI and CFAP on the chopping block, and Schwarzenegger’s power to keep them there.

Each January, California requires its Governor to submit an initial budget proposal to the legislature.  Since 2004, it has additionally been a requirement for the Governor to balance the budget.[3] This budget is exceptionally complex, and details California’s expected revenues and spending for the entire year.  Despite this, legislation committees are expected to review all of the proposed budget bills, and provide feedback to the governor promptly: “The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee and the Assembly Budget Committee are the two committees that hear the Budget Bills. They assign the items in the bill to several subcommittees […] hearings generally begin in late February.”[4] The subcommittees are organized and separated into subject areas such as Education, or Health and Human Services.  Thus, it is extremely difficult for the subcommittees to coordinate on the proposed bills, and decide on issues collectively.  A Congressman in one committee has little to no control over the decisions of the other subcommittees.  This problem is particularly relevant when decisions made in one committee have widespread consequences to the budget as a whole.

CalWORKS, CAPI and CFAP were assigned to California’s Senate Subcommittee #3, on Health and Human Services.[5] Unfortunately, Subcommittee #3 was unable to provide many substantial recommendations on the proposals.  This inaction occurred despite substantial public opinion against any proposed cuts to welfare programs, particularly in the health care sector.  The main cause, as Sinclair touches on, is that Governor Schwarzenegger proposed the budget reforms as a package deal.  The subcommittee likely opposed many of the individual proposals, but because of the complexity of the budget and an inability to coordinate with other subcommittees, it was impossible to recommend a sweeping reform to the budget.  An additional difficulty is the time frame in which the subcommittee was forced to work.  Sinclair states: “[The] budget process is, however, a complex process even when it is not used to attempt to enact comprehensive policy change.  Its deadlines can present problems as well as exerting pressure for action.”[6] In California, subcommittees are given only two months before recommendations are due at the beginning of May.  This deadline caused the proposed cuts to minor programs, such as CAPI and CFAP, to be considered only in passing.  Even paramount issues, such as the elimination of CalWORKS, did not receive their due debate.

Due to these constraints, Subcommittee #3 was only able to make one strong statement on Schwarzenegger’s proposal:  “The Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health and Human Services, in a long hearing held March 18 on some of the Governor’s proposed human services budget issues, rejected […] trigger proposals that would have eliminated […] CalWORKS.”[7] In this case, one of Schwarzenegger’s three trigger proposals would have eliminated CalWORKS if California did not receive an additional $6.9 billion in Federal funding before the July 15^th, the budget passage date.  The elimination of CalWORKS would save California an estimated $1.2 billion in 2010-2011.[8] This issue was too consequential for the subcommittee to overlook, and they voted unanimously against the proposal.  In regards CAPI and CFAP, no direct recommendations were made, as the effects of the programs are not as widespread, both financially and in terms of the populace affected.

On May 14^th, Governor Schwarzenegger released his revised budget proposal.  This generally takes into account the recommendations of committees, and will “consist of an update of General Fund revenues and changes in expenditures […] The Legislature typically waits for the May Revision update before final budget decisions are made on major programs such as Education, Corrections, and Health and Human Services.”[9] The flaw in the system is that even if a committee initially recommends against a certain proposal, the Governor is free to proceed with it in his May revision.  In the case of the CalWORKS recommendation made on March 18th: “While it appears the action by the Senate subcommittee is likely final on these 3 specific “trigger proposals” that would eliminate the three entire programs – the Governor could, in May when he submits his revisions or changes to his proposed 2010-2011 State Budget – propose the same “trigger proposals” again – or a different version of those proposals.”[10] In fact, Governor Schwarzenegger did re-propose the elimination of CalWORKS, which causes huge problems for the legislature.  Because there is still a possibility of its passage, Congress must still consider its consequences, and cannot move on to focus on other proposed bills or solutions to the budget crisis.  Herein lies the main difference between the “normal” legislation process, and California’s budget process, in which the Governor is given tremendous power and influence.

Between now and July 15^th, there is much to be decided.  The subcommittees will reach their final decisions, taking into consideration Schwarzenegger’s revised budget proposals.  Once the full committees reach a consensus, the Budget bill is passed to the floor, and voted on.  A two-thirds vote is then required in both houses to pass the bill into law.[11] This all seems very democratic, but it is the process that forms the government agenda itself that is unsound, for three main reasons.  First, the Governor is able to propose the budget with package proposals – this combines with a lack of coordination between subcommittees to make reform of the proposed budget very difficult.  Second, the time constraints and the deadlines in the process inhibit in-depth discussion of each issue, often resulting in an inability to consider comprehensive reform involving multiple issues.  Finally, the Governor has complete control over the budget agenda for the majority of the time it is being considered – free to ignore any recommendations by subcommittees.  These problems have had disastrous consequences for the welfare programs CalWORKS, CAPI and CFAP, which affect thousands of legal immigrants statewide.  Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposals to cut funding to CAPI and CFAP have gone completely unopposed thus far in the process.  Senate Subcommittee #3 was able to refute his trigger proposal to completely eliminate CalWORKS, a step in the right direction for immigrant welfare.  However, because of the rules of the budget process, Schwarzenegger was able to place his proposal again on the agenda, reducing the effect of this recommendation, if not eradicating it entirely.  The aspects of the budget are passed into law on July 15^th remains to be seen.  It is certain, however, that Governor Schwarzenegger will have emphatically shaped the entirety of the agenda at that point.

---

[1] DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Release #2306. Rep. no. 2306. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2009. Print.

[2] Sinclair, Barbara. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2005. Print.

[3] “Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act.” California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm>.

[4] “California’s Budget Process.” California Department of Finance. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/process.htm>.

[5]“Senate Subcommittee #3: Committee Schedule.” California State Senate. Web. 15 May 2010. <http://www.sen.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/agenda?INET_FTP:[SEN.COMMITTEE.SUB.BFR_3_HEALTH]schedule.htm>.

[6] Sinclair, Barbara. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2005. Print.

[7] “Senate Committee Rejects Governor’s Budget Pro.” CALegalAdvocates.org. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.calegaladvocates.org/news/article.305036-Senate_committee_rejects_Governors_budget_proposals_to_cut_human_services>.

[8] Cajina, Vanessa. Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Programs for Lawful Immigrants in California. Rep. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.

[9] “California’s Budget Process.” California Department of Finance. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/process.htm>.

[10] “Senate Committee Rejects Governor’s Budget Pro.” CALegalAdvocates.org. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.calegaladvocates.org/news/article.305036-Senate_committee_rejects_Governors_budget_proposals_to_cut_human_services>.

[11] “California’s Budget Process.” California Department of Finance. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/process.htm>.

Prediction: 6/01/2010

Upon conclusion of my analysis, I felt it only appropriate to provide the reader with my prediction on the outcomes of Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposals.  With approximately a month and half remaining before the July 15th California budget deadline, much is yet to be determined.  However, given the research I have done, I conclude that funding to both CFAP and CAPI will be cut in the final version of the budget.  The implications of these cuts are drastic, and discussed in detail in the introduction.  While I believe the outcomes on those two programs are fairly certain, the future for CalWORKS is still uncertain.  Both the public and portions of the legislature have already shown their displeasure with the proposition, yet it remained on Governor Schwarzenegger’s revised budget proposal.  I believe that the termination of CalWORKS will eventually be voted down by the California legislature, mainly because it affects such a large population statewide.  Additionally, California voters have a huge stake in CalWORKS, as opposed to CAPI and CFAP where only non-voting immigrant residents would be affected.  Thus, although Governor Schwarzenegger has shown his power in putting CalWORKS on the agenda and pushing it through two stages of the budget process, I believe public opinion will override his agenda and reject his proposals.  While this will be good for low-income California immigrants and citizens alike, it will cause tremendous problems for the legislature, as they will be forced to close a $1.2 billion dollar gap in CalWORKS place.

Works Cited

Works Cited

“2010-11 Budget Proposal: Solving California’s $20 Billion Deficit – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.” Web. 09 Apr. 2010. <http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/14147/>.

“Another Inconvenient Truth.” San Diego News, Local, California and National News – SignOnSanDiego.com. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/29/another-inconvenient-truth/>.

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. Print.

Cajina, Vanessa. Governor Again Proposes Drastic Cuts to Program for Lawful Immigrant in California. Rep. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.

“California’s Budget Process.” California Department of Finance. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/process.htm>.

California Immigration Policy Center. The Cost of Cutting Immigrant Welfare Programs. Berkeley: California Immigration Policy Center, 2010. Print.

The Cost of Cutting Immigrant Programs: Illness, Hunger and Homelessness. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.

DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Growing Differences between Voters and Non-voters about Perceived Impact Illegal Immigrants. Rep. no. 2185. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Majorities Rate Jobs/the Economy, the State Budget Deficit, Education and Health Care as Top Issues in This Year’s Governor’s Race. Rep. no. 2334. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Release #2306. Rep. no. 2306. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2009. Print.

DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Voters Favor Creating Opportunities to Legalize the Status of Illegal Residents and Back Policies Aimed at Reducing the Flow of Immigrants into the Country. Rep. no. 2229. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

The Governor’s Proposed Budget Would Eliminate CalWORKS Cash Assistance for More than 1.4 Million Low-income Children and Parents. Rep. Sacramento: California Budget Project, 2010. Print.

The Governor’s Proposed Cuts to the SSI/SSP and CAPI Programs Would Affect Nearly 950,000 Californians. Rep. Sacramento: California Budget Project, 2010. Print.

Hess, Frederick M. “When Education Research Matters.” When Education Research Matters: How Scholarship Influences Education Policy (2008). Web. 21 Apr. 2010.

Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984. Print.

Omoto, Marty. “Senate Committee Rejects Governor’s Budget Pro.” CALegalAdvocates.org. Web. 26 Apr. 2010. <http://www.calegaladvocates.org/news/article.305036-Senate_committee_rejects_Governors_budget_proposals_to_cut_human_services>

“Policy Center – CIPC.” Welcome to the California Immigrant Policy Center – CIPC. Web. 24 Apr. 2010. <https://caimmigrant.org/policy_center.html>.

“Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act.” California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Web. 09 Apr. 2010. <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm>.

“Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act.” California Legislative Analyst’s

“Report: Immigrants Contribute Greatly To California – News Story – KRXI Reno.” Reno – Lake Tahoe News, Weather, Sports & Entertainment – FOXReno. Web. 30 Apr. 2010. <http://www.foxreno.com/news/22346175/detail.html>.

Reshma, Shamasunder, and Isabel Alegria, eds. Looking Forward: Immigrant Contributions to the Golden State. Rep. Sacramento: California Immigrant Policy Center, 2010. Print.

“Senate Committee Rejects Governor’s Budget Pro.” CALegalAdvocates.org. Web. 14 May 2010. <http://www.calegaladvocates.org/news/article.305036-Senate_committee_rejects_Governors_budget_proposals_to_cut_human_services>.

“Senate Subcommittee #3: Committee Schedule.” California State Senate. Web. 15 May 2010. <http://www.sen.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/agenda?INET_FTP:[SEN.COMMITTEE.SUB.BFR_3_HEALTH]schedule.htm>.

Sinclair, Barbara. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2005. Print.